David Keating and Brad Smith WSJ oped:

Fights over campaign-finance laws are, more than other political struggles, fights over power. When power changes hands, new regulations are often put in place to benefit the victors’ political fortunes. The temptation to use speech regulation to hamper political opponents is ever present and too often irresistible.

That’s why it’s disheartening to see the House Freedom Caucus hypocritically object to a proposal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—which would be part of a crucial spending bill that Congress must pass by Dec. 11—to lift the limit on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates. This would better enable parties to work directly with their candidates. It’s not the government’s role to regulate this speech. Mr. McConnell’s proposal is strongly pro-First Amendment.

The conservatives in the Freedom Caucus, who are often at odds with the Republican Party leadership, believe they are more likely to get help from super PACs. If the party can more easily spend funds in coordination with candidates, but other groups cannot, they fear that they’ll be at a disadvantage in intraparty battles. And so many have announced opposition to removing restrictions on parties unless they are also removed from super PACs. Says Caucus member Mick Mulvaney, “It effectively empowers the establishment wing of both parties.”

That’s wrong. Mr. McConnell’s proposal applies only to general elections, and the law limits party-coordinated expenditures in primaries to the same amount—$5,000—as regular PACs.