Well this is a very interesting development in the case I’ve been tracking closely and expect the Supreme Court to hear, especially given that Marc Elias has not been one to generally defend campaign finance limits applied to political parties.

From the brief’s introduction:

The Republican Party has spent decades trying to eliminate statutory limits on political party
expenditures that are coordinated with candidates’ campaigns. See Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 623 (1996) (“Colorado I”); FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (“Colorado II”); In re Cao, 619 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2010) (en banc); Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm. v. FEC, 117 F.4th 389 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (“NRSC”). To date, those efforts have failed at every turn, thanks to this Court’s careful
analysis of the First Amendment in Colorado II, the courts of appeals’ faithful application of that precedent, and the FEC’s steadfast defense of Congress’s regulatory prerogatives. Since this Court first recognized the constitutionality of coordinated expenditure limits in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 46– 47 (1976) (per curiam), settled law has been respected as settled law, ensuring a stable, predictable campaign finance regime for party committees and political candidates across the country.

Two weeks ago, that equilibrium was severely disrupted. With the FEC lacking a quorum, the Solicitor General’s May 19 response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari (“Resp. Br.”) abandoned the U.S. Government’s heretofore consistent defense of the challenged statute and took the side of Petitioners in urging the Court to blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates through party committees’ coordinated expenditures.

That extraordinary departure has resulted in an extraordinary situation: every brief on this Court’s docket—from Petitioners, Respondents, and six amici curiae—echoes the same mistaken attack on the judgment below. No one has defended the handiwork of Congress or this Court, stifling the “lively conflict between antagonistic demands” that is essential to our system of justice. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 503 (1961). This total lack of adversity requires correction, as Respondents concede in requesting a Court appointed amicus curiae to defend the judgment below. See Resp. Br. 20.

But this Court has better options. For one, the Court can and should deny certiorari, rather than grant review in the absence of adversity. This case was already a poor candidate for review before the Solicitor General’s decision to change position. The Court resolved the precise issues raised here in Colorado II, and stare decisis principles apply in full force. The First Amendment has not changed since 2001, the anti-circumvention and corruption concerns justifying the statute remain the same, and both en banc courts of appeals presented with Petitioners’
arguments have rejected them. Candidates, political parties, and Congress in amending campaign finance law have all relied on Colorado II in the two-and-ahalf decades since that case was decided. And there has certainly been no lack of robust campaign speech in that time. There is no need or reason for the Court to revisit Colorado II now.

If this Court does grant certiorari, however, it should not appoint a disinterested amicus with no stake in the matter. Instead, it should grant intervention to Movants Democratic National Committee, DSCC, and DCCC (collectively, the “Democratic Party Committees”). The Democratic Party Committees are subject-matter experts, include the mirror-image entities of two Petitioners, and possess a direct stake in vindicating their reliance interests in the existing regulatory regime. As Intervenor-Respondents, they will cure the lack of adversity and provide a vigorous and informed defense of the coordinated expenditure limits now under attack.
Alternatively, if the Court grants certiorari and denies intervention, the Democratic Party Committees request leave to participate in any oral argument as amici curiae.

I have no idea if the Court would grant leave for the Democratic Party to intervene. Ordinarily I’d say no, that the Court would just let the party file an amicus brief. But the lack of adversity here is severe, and as the brief argues, this does create real adversity with someone with skin in the game.