Vance’s Dodge on 2028 Plans Cited to Defend Party Spending Caps

Vice President JD Vance’s insistence that he’s not thinking about the 2028 election is being seized on to push the Supreme Court to reject a GOP challenge of a law that caps political party spending in coordination with federal candidates.

Vance, who helped bring the challenge in 2022, on Nov. 13 told Fox News he tries to put any thoughts of running for president “out of my head” in order to avoid “getting distracted” from his current job. Any talk of 2028 is “premature,” he said in separate comments Oct. 29.

That shows Vance doesn’t have plans to run in a specific race in the near future, and thus is no longer a party with a proper legal claim in the matter, according to a Nov. 24 brief pushing the court to leave the caps in place.

Roman Martinez, a Latham & Watkins partner who frequently argues before the court, submitted the brief after the justices asked him to argue in favor of coordinated-spending limits, which apply to activities such as advertising.

The appointment came after President Donald Trump’s administration in May said it would join two Republican campaign committees in challenging the caps enforced by the Federal Election Commission.

The justices are set to hear arguments in NRSC v. FEC on Dec. 9, in the latest test of how the conservative-dominated court views campaign finance regulations and whether they violate constitutional speech rights.

Martinez, who is defending the law alongside the Democratic National Committee, highlighted Vance in arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the matter.

As an Ohio senator, Vance in 2022 joined the National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee in suing the FEC over the regulation on spending limits, claiming it harmed “core First Amendment-protected activities of political parties.” He’s remained a party to the proceeding throughout the litigation.

The NRSC and NRCC also lack grounds to pursue the case, Martinez said, arguing in part that the section of the Federal Election Campaign Act at issue governs “the national committee of a political party,” not the campaign committees.

“This case is a jurisdictional mess,” Martinez said in the brief. “If the court wants to dismiss this case on Article III grounds, it can. Or it can simply dismiss the petition as improvidently granted.”

The arguments that will take place next month follow a string of rulings by the conservative court that have weakened campaign-finance regulations.

Congress enacted coordinated-spending caps in 1974, which are adjusted for inflation and seen by proponents as a vehicle to stifle corruption. In 2024, the limits ranged from $61,800 for House races in most states to $32,392,200 for presidential nominees.

The case is NRSC v. FEC, U.S., 24-621, brief filed 11/24/25.