Supreme Court restores cheaper TV ad rates ahead of midterms in major win for GOP

The ruling could allow cash-rich Republican committees to stretch their advertising dollars further as both parties compete in the November midterms
The justices halted a lower-court ruling that had blocked political parties from receiving the same favorable broadcast rates available to candidates (Getty Images)
The justices halted a lower-court ruling that had blocked political parties from receiving the same favorable broadcast rates available to candidates (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, DC: The Supreme Court on Friday, September 4, sided with Republican campaign committees in a fight over discounted television advertising rates ahead of the upcoming November midterm elections.

The justices halted a lower-court ruling that had blocked political parties from receiving the same favorable broadcast rates available to candidates. The decision restores Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidance allowing parties and joint fundraising committees to receive those lower rates when their ads are coordinated with candidates.

Supreme Court restores FCC policy as ad wars approach

The dispute centers on the “lowest unit charge,” or LUC, rates that television stations must offer qualified political candidates during the 60 days before a general election. Those rates are typically lower than what political parties, super PACs and other outside groups pay for comparable advertising time.

In March, an FCC component issued guidance directing broadcasters to extend the discounted rates to political parties and joint fundraising committees purchasing ads in coordination with candidates.

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 09: U.S. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), joined by U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) (L), speaks to reporters following a Senate Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on December 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. The senators discussed a variety of topics including a vote expected this week on a Democratic proposal to extend expiring Obamacare subsidies. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
Sen Jon Ossoff (D-GA), joined by U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), speaks to reporters following a Senate Democratic policy luncheon at the US Capitol on December 9, 2025, in Washington, DC (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

However, four Democratic candidates, Sen Jon Ossoff, Rep Kristen McDonald Rivet, former Sen Sherrod Brown, and former North Carolina Gov Roy Cooper, had challenged that guidance. 

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 last month that the guidance was unlawful, finding that the lower rates applied to candidates and their campaign committees, not political parties or joint fundraising committees. 



The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) had then requested the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the appeals court had improperly reviewed a staff-level guidance document and that broadcasters were already rescinding discounted rates because of the ruling.

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 30: A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2020 in Washington, D
The US Supreme Court is seen on June 30, 2020, in Washington, DC (Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court, in an unsigned order, said the 4th Circuit likely lacked jurisdiction to hear the Democrats’ challenge. The justices also found that Republican committees were likely being harmed by the lower court’s decision.



“Current and future recissions will require the party committees to pay more for advertising space, thereby hampering their efforts to reach the electorate in the critical weeks leading up to the midterms,” the Supreme Court said. “That injury, which implicates their First Amendment rights to speak and coordinate their political activities freely, cannot be remedied after the fact through refunds or reimbursements.” 

GOP moves to capitalize as midterm advertising ramps up

The ruling comes as political advertising enters a critical period ahead of November. Republican committees had told the Supreme Court they had budgeted “tens of millions of dollars” for advertising at the discounted rates. They argued that losing access to those rates would force them to spend substantially more to reach voters.

The Trump administration and FCC backed the Republican committees. Solicitor General D John Sauer argued that the FCC policy applies equally to both parties and does not give Republicans preferential treatment.

Anna Gomez, commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), from left, Brendan Carr, commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Olivia Trusty, commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), during an open commission meeting at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) headquarters on February 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)
Anna Gomez, commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), from left, Brendan Carr, commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Olivia Trusty, commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), during an open commission meeting at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) headquarters on February 18, 2026, in Washington, DC (Al Drago/Getty Images)

“The notice does not grant favored treatment to one side or the other; instead, the notice's interpretation offers the same benefit to all sides, including the challengers themselves and the committees and parties supporting them,” Sauer said.

Democratic lawyers argued that extending the lower rates to party committees would dilute the benefit available to candidates and force campaigns to spend more to compete for limited television advertising space.

GET BREAKING U.S. NEWS & POLITICAL UPDATES
STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX.

MORE STORIES

Although Trump has historically favored mail-in or Election Day voting, he is voting in person during Florida’s early voting period
2026-10-23T20:23:04.000Z
Judge Bennett disagreed with the decision, saying the appeals court should not have ruled on the case at this stage. The Trump administration wanted to withdraw its appeal and return to the lower court to discuss how the Supreme Court’s ruling would affect the case
2026-10-23T19:03:58.000Z
The lawsuit stems from the presence of a third Senate candidate, Daniel J. Sullivan, whose name closely resembles that of incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan
2026-10-23T18:08:34.000Z
The charges are part of a probe into whether FBI officials sought to minimise allegations of corruption involving the Biden family and evidence linked to Hunter Biden’s laptop
2026-10-23T17:00:17.000Z
No official truce was declared as the US maintained its naval blockade of Iran and Tehran continued restricting access through the Strait of Hormuz
2026-10-23T15:44:52.000Z
Donald Trump’s 2026 midterm election stakes rise as competitive Senate races in Kansas, Texas, Ohio, Maine and Alaska threaten GOP control
2026-10-23T08:01:20.000Z
A spokesperson said that the allegations were 'completely false' and reaffirmed that Ilhan Omar is her real name
2026-10-23T04:04:58.000Z
Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the lower court’s order sought to address alleged misinformation about election rules rather than change the state law
2026-10-23T03:09:16.000Z
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine urged Vivek Ramaswamy to pull the Amy Acton ad, calling it 'deeply, deeply troubling' and wrong to run
2026-10-23T02:28:06.000Z
As per Pentagon officials, it gives a similar 'tingling sensation' as the blast of heat when opening an oven, resulting in a 10-15 minute itching and burning sensation
2026-10-22T20:33:58.000Z