The Supreme Court has been hit with a huge surge of filings in support of a GOP and Trump administration demand to end campaign spending restrictions on “coordinated expenditures” by the Republican Party and its House and Senate candidates.

In the past week, the court received 18 filings from individuals, groups, and the Republican National Committee, most in support of the call by the National Senatorial Campaign Committee for the court to reverse an earlier decision and approve unlimited party coordinated spending with its candidates.

Recommended Stories

• Trump economy raises optimism to four-year high
• God’s ‘report card’: Just half of Congress votes in line with Bible
• ABC reporter fired for Trump hate doubles down: Liberal Media Scream

Most of the new filings in support of the NRSC in its case against the Federal Election Commission came in late last week, led by the RNC’s 40-page file from former FEC Chairman Lee Goodman with the Dhillon Law Group Inc.

Like the others, he argued that the spending and coordination limits placed on political parties in previous court cases are outdated and violate the First Amendment. He added that the court should lower the bar on parties as it has done on corporations, which gave rise to historic spending by super PACs.

“While Super PACs and other speakers, including internet speakers and new media, now operate without contribution limits and may work with candidates in significant ways or avail themselves of regulatory exemptions, political parties remain subject to strict contribution caps, source prohibitions, and, crucially, tight ceilings on coordinated expenditures that must be rationed between national, state, and local party committees. These coordinated-spending limits are dwarfed by the cost of modern campaigns and have the effect of silencing many state and local parties,” he wrote.

Others joining in the fight included 20 states, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Republican Governors Association, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and former Senate Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

The court announced in June that it would consider overturning its 2001 decision upholding limits on coordinated spending by parties. Democrats are urging it to leave the decision alone.

The case could have the biggest impact on campaign spending since the court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling lifted caps on corporations and outside groups.

Those urging it to lift the restriction argue that the spending limits of $63,600 for the House and $127,200 for Senate races are “minuscule.” They also argue that it’s foolish to block parties from coordinating ad spending with their own candidates over possible corruption concerns.

SEE THE LATEST POLITICAL NEWS AND BUZZ FROM WASHINGTON SECRETS

Several election lawyers pointed to McConnell’s brief as one of the best of the bunch of new files because it uses plain language to argue for a change.

“Money is essential to extend a political campaign beyond the soapbox,” said his brief in support of the NRSC. “A limit on party expenditures, whether independent or coordinated, in support of its nominees is not just a restriction on the party’s contribution to a candidate, but on the party’s own speech for its own electoral mission,” it added.