Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemingly alluded to Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump when discussing corruption and quid pro quos during arguments on Tuesday.
The high court heard arguments in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission over whether the FEC’s coordinated expenditure limits between political parties and candidates violate the parties’ First Amendment free speech rights. While arguing that striking down the limits would not lead to increased quid pro quo corruption, NRSC lawyer Noel Francisco was grilled by Sotomayor with an apparent allusion to Musk.
“You mean to suggest that the fact that one major donor to the current president, the most major donor to the current president, got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the new administration does not give the appearance of a quid pro quo?” Sotomayor asked.
Musk, who was one of the top donors to Trump’s 2024 campaign, landed a job as the de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency from the start of Trump’s second term in January through the end of May. Shortly after leaving the administration, Musk and Trump engaged in a public feud, but appear to have put it behind them in recent months. Musk’s role in the administration, considering the contracts SpaceX and other Musk-led companies have with the federal government, was sharply criticized by left-wing watchdogs and politicians.
Francisco said he seemed to understand which example Sotomayor was discussing and dismissed corruption concerns, arguing that he has “a hard time thinking that his salary that [Musk] drew from the federal government was an effective quid pro quo bribery.” Sotomayor responded by pointing to government contracts.
“Maybe not the salary, but certainly, the lucrative government contracts might be,” Sotomayor said.
Sotomayor expressed skepticism over the NRSC’s request to strike down the coordinated spending limits between parties and candidates, saying the Supreme Court’s “tinkering causes more harm than it does good” with campaign finance laws.
“Once we take off this coordinated expenditure limit, then what’s left? What’s left is nothing, no control whatsoever,” Sotomayor said.
Sotomayor and the other left-leaning justices were sharply critical of Francisco’s arguments to strike down the coordinated spending limits, while the conservative justices appeared more open to doing so on First Amendment grounds. The high court has struck down similar campaign finance laws on First Amendment grounds in recent years, and outside court watchers expect the justices to do the same in the NRSC case.
SUPREME COURT WILL CONSIDER WALKING BACK CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS EVEN FURTHER
The high court is expected to issue a decision in NRSC v. FEC within the coming months, with all decisions from this term expected to be released by the end of June 2026.
The NRSC v. FEC case is one of several this term that could shake up the 2026 elections. The high court heard cases earlier this term regarding race-based redistricting under the Voting Rights Act, which could have implications for the congressional maps of various southern states, as well as whether federal candidates can challenge state election laws. Later this term, the Supreme Court will hear a case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, over late-arriving mail-ballot laws.
