December 11, 2025 • 37 mins
Elections expert Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses the Supreme Court oral arguments over Republican efforts to get rid of federal caps on spending by political parties in coordination with candidates. Then Jennifer Kay, Bloomberg Law senior correspondent, discusses a custody battle over a goldendoodle. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
The Supreme Court is considering a Republican led effort to
erase yet another campaign finance regulation, this time the federal
caps that limit how much political parties can spend in
coordination with candidates for Congress. It's the latest in a
line of cases where the conservative majority has upended congressionally
(00:31):
enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections,
and two hours of oral arguments showed the entrenched divisions
between the liberal and conservative justices over campaign finance restrictions.
Liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor said that every time the Court interferes,
(00:52):
it makes matters worse.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
You're telling us that citizens United and McCutcheon ended up
yes in amplifying the voice of corporations, but diminsion sing
another voice, that of the party. Now you want to
now tinker some more and try to raise the voice
of one party. Our tinkering causes more harm than it
(01:17):
does good, because once we take off this coordinated expenditure limits,
then what's left. What's left is nothing, no control whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
While Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the spending limits
have hurt political parties in an era of unlimited spending
by other organizations.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
That's the real source of the disadvantage. Right, you can
give huge money to the outside group, but you can't
give huge money of the party. So the parties are
very much weakened compared to the outside groups.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
And Chief Justice John Roberts, a potentially pivotal vote, said
that he didn't see much distinction between contribution limits, which
the Court has long upheld, and caps on coordinated expenditures.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
It seems to me that that's kind of a fiction
that you know, they're just coordinating expenditures, they're not making
direct contributions.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
I don't know in substance what the difference is.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Doing away with the caps would overturn a quarter century
old precedent in a week when it appears that the
Court will also be overturning a ninety year old president
in a case involving President Trump's ability to fire the
heads of independent agencies. Joining me is elections law expert
Richard Brefald, a professor at Columbia Law School. Rich Well,
(02:46):
you start by explaining the federal caps on spending by
political parties in coordination with candidates.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
So the Federal Ussian Campaign Act, going back to the
nineteen seventies when it was enacted in the aftermath of Hortegate,
places limits on donations to candidates, and it also places
limits on donations to parties. It does something else, It
places limits on how much parties can give to candidates,
on the theory that donors, once they max out on
(03:16):
how much the donor can give directly to a candidate,
will then just give to a party to channel the
money to a candidate. So there's a limit on how
much the parties can give to their candidates. And that
comes up in two ways. One is a literal limit
on contributions actually writing a check, but the parties are
also allowed to engage in their own spending in supportive candidates,
(03:37):
and that's called coordinated expenditures. In other words, the party
does the spending. They don't give the candidate a check,
but they do spending to promote the candidate. Parties are
allowed to do that, but the law places a limit
on how much money they can spend supporting candidates. And
again for the same idea that if there is no
limit on how much they could support candidates through spending.
(03:58):
Once again, donors who once they max out on the
direct donation to the candidate, would then just give unlimited
amounts or very big amounts to the parties, and the
parties could then use that money to basically support their candidates.
So that's what this limit on coordinated spending does. It's
higher than the contribution limit, and it varies from state
(04:19):
to state based on the population of the state. But
parties are allowed to do this in a way that
other organizations are not. Packs are not allowed to coordinate
at all with candidates. So parties get this extra permission
to support the candidates directly, but with a cap on it.
And what's going on in this case is the National
Republican Senate Campaign Committee and JD. Vance, who this case
(04:41):
began was a Senator and a Congressman from Ohio who
I think has since retired, have all brought suit challenging
this limit on the ability of parties to coordinate their
spending with candidates. I should say almost twenty five years ago.
The Supreme Court upheld this limit in a case called
Color a Republican Aside in two thousand and one, and
(05:02):
the Court said yes because of the danger of conduits
of party serving as conduits for donor support. These limits
make sense and are constitutional. Well, the Sperreme Court is
being asked basically now is to overturn that decision.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
The liberal justices had concerns, and one that lifting the
limits on party spending would lead to quid pro quo bribery,
so wealthy donors could bypass the individual contribution limits by
donating through parties instead.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
I mean that is the major concern of the liberal
justices and of the call of the campaign finance reform
community as a whole, is that this will put another
hole in the campaign finance laws and make it easier
for wealthy donors to channel money to candidates. There's still
limits on their ability to give directly, but this would
enable them to give through the parties and so that
(05:55):
money would still get to candidate. So yeah, that is
the core concern. A second con is, depending on how
the Court writes this decision, it could be the green
light for further challenges to other aspects of a campaign
finance laws depending on exactly how.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
They write this.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
So it's both upfront making it easier to channel money
from donors to candidates and also yet one more case,
eroding Congress's ability to place limits on campaign money.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
What was your take on Justice Soda Mayor telling Nold Francisco,
the attorney for the Republicans here, that Elon Musk got
his position at DOGE through a quid pro quote.
Speaker 6 (06:35):
More speech is always.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Suggests that the fact that one major donor to the
current president, the most major donor to the current current president,
got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the
new administration does not give the appearance.
Speaker 5 (07:02):
With pro quote, Honor.
Speaker 6 (07:03):
I'm not a one hundred percent sure about the example
that you're looking at, but if I am familiar, if
I think I know what you're talking about, I have
a hard time thinking that his salary that he drew
from the federal government was an effective quid pro quote bribery,
which may be why nobody has even remotely suggested that.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Maybe not the salary, but certainly the lucrative government contracts
might be.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
I mean, I think it's fair to say that the
Elon must was by any stretch Trump's biggest supporter, unless
the biggest financial supporter in the last election, somewhere in
the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars, and I think
that allowed him to ask Trump for special favors, including
running Doge, which itself you know, obviously he didn't get
paid for running Doge, but it put it in a
(07:49):
position to influence the personnel and the policies of a
lot of agencies that have regulatory functions over a lot
of his activities, whether it's the SEC or NASA or
other organizations that can affect the industries and businesses that
he has.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
The administration and the Republicans argument centers on free speech
rights as these campaign finance cases since Citizens United have
done tell us more about that argument.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
The essential argument is that this is a limit on
the ability of parties to speak and that you don't
need it. That the combination of disclosure laws, anti bribery laws,
and limits on literally earmarking, and that's the term, let's
use a donation that a donor gives to a party
to be used for a candidate.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
That that's enough.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
That those three things banning bribes, requiring disclosure, and saying
what a donor gives a party a donation saying they
can't literally say this is going to candidate so and so,
that that's enough, and that to go beyond that is
to constrain the ability of parties as free speech actors,
as First Amendment actors to participate in the political process.
(09:00):
What do you think, So it's hard to say that
this is a big constraint. Parties are free to participate
in the process. In a fairly controversial decison thirty years ago,
the Supreme Court said that parties are capable of engaging
in independent spending. That parties can promote their candidates just
as long as they don't coordinate with them, just as
long as they don't actually sit down with them and say,
what do you want us to say, How do you
(09:21):
want us to say it, what media do you want
to use? So the court, you know, thirty years ago,
created this vehicle for unlimited party participation in elections. So
it's hard to say that this is a big constraint.
The defenders of the law argue that in practice and
coordinated spending, the parties actually don't.
Speaker 5 (09:40):
Do a lot of literal speech.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
You're fine, they don't do a lot of actual advertising
or promoting that often what it's being used is just
to help the candidates pay their bills. So the candidate
you know, basically booked a block of hotels is during
a campaign swing or you know, was paying for literature
or to the candidates, you know, campaign director or makes
the commitment buy and then gives the party the bill
(10:03):
and says pay this. That's at least the argument that
the defenders of the law we're making that in practice,
coordinated expenditures are not parties getting out there and saying
this is the party message. But there are de facto
contributions to help the candidates to freight their bills.
Speaker 5 (10:19):
That gets constitutional protection.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
It still enables candidates the campaign, and there's a First
Amendment interest, but it's hard to see that this is
really squeezing the party's ability to have its own voice.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Just as Brett Kavanaugh said, you can give huge money
to the outside group, but you can't give huge money
to the party, and so the parties are very much
weakened compared to the outside group. Is he talking about
packs here, is it?
Speaker 5 (10:43):
Yes, he's talking about super PACs.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
And indeed, that is an argument that many people have
raised who don't like this law, including people who might
liberals or reformers. They say this law might have made
some sense when it was first adopted, but given the
proliferation of super PACs and other outside groups, we be
better off if parties actually had a bigger voice, that
parties can play a coordination function, that parties maybe can
(11:06):
be a little less extreme than some outside groups, that
parties have more of an interest in governance rather than
being single issue and that actually if we could start
all over now that the outside groups have kind of
unlimited voice, that anything that strengthens the parties is actually
a good thing. And that you see many people who
are not conservatives who are taking that position, who are
(11:27):
not First Amendment absolutists, but think that in fact, the
campaign financystem has gotten unbalanced and it would actually be
good to strengthen the role of parties and this could
do that.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Professor Richard breflt. So,
how is the Court likely to rule? I'm Juan Grasso,
and you're listening to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court this week
weighed Republican calls for a fresh rollback of campaign finance regulations,
questioning federal caps that limit spending by political parties in
(11:59):
coordinat with candidates. I've been talking to Columbia Law School
professor Richard Brefault, So, rich the Chief Justice suggested that
he didn't see much difference between the contribution limits, which
the Court has long upheld, and the caps on coordinated expenditures.
(12:19):
Do you think there's a chance that the Chief won't
vote with the super conservatives on this to do away
with the caps, or there's.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
A chance that it goes the other way, and that
once they begin to dismantle limits on coordinate expenditure as
contributional limits are next. And there was an interesting point
where some of the justices ask mister Francisco, who is
the lawyer for the National publican Centate Campaign Committee, well
what about that? What about limits on contributions? And he says,
I don't want to get into that right now. I
kind of want to reserve the right to challenge that
(12:51):
down the road. And indeed, some of the liberal justices
and the lawyer for people who are defending this law,
which I should say is not the government as a
federal statute, but the Trump administration will not defend it.
In fact, they actually joined in the attack on it.
So the statue was being defended by two lawyers. One
was a lawyer pointed about the court to speak for
the statute. In addition, the lawyer for the Democratic Party
(13:14):
for Democratic Organizations also was given permission to argue, and
they both argue that basically this is the bate and
switch that's been going on in campaign finance law for
a long time.
Speaker 5 (13:24):
Someone says, well, given changes in the law.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
This particular restriction doesn't make any sense, so you should
strike it down. And then they come along and say, well,
now you're struck down this one. The next restriction doesn't
make any sense either, so strike that down. And there
seems to be a kind of a salami tactic aspect
to this. A number of the justices are very, very skeptical,
more than skeptical about the constitutionality of the contribution restrictions.
(13:46):
They don't have to decide that in this case, but
the Court has traditionally treated coordinated expenditures as the constitutional
equivalent of contributions. If they're going to start protecting coordinated
expenditures more, saying that they're more protected from limitation, it's
not a big leap to say that that kind of
thinking would also apply to the contribution restrictions.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
The Republicans are bringing this challenge to do away with
the federal caps, so one assumes that they would benefit
more than the Democrats who are fighting to keep the caps.
But Justice Amy Cony Barrett asked the attorney for the
Democrats which party would ultimately benefit from a ruling. If
(14:29):
there isn't an imbalance in who this benefits, why would
the DNC be here? And I believe that was the
only question she asked.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
I think what Barrett was getting at is that the
reason you're here, Elias, the.
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Impressive hear is for pure partisan reasons.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
That you have less of a merits basis for opposing this,
and more you're doing it because you think that this
will help the Republicans and if the first knowne requires
it, it doesn't matter who's helped, they're not. I think there
was also some sort of some effort to figure out
why is it if this this is a better restriction
on parties, and in fact, why does one party want
to strike it down a one party want to keep it?
(15:05):
And does it that mean that it operates unevenly across
the party? Is not clear that it does, but if
it operates unevenly, it suggests that you're opposing it for
partisan reasons rather than on a kind of a merits
based this is good for democracy.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
There was also a standing argument that the attorney appointed
to defend the law made. It's centered on Vice President JD. Vance,
who was a Senate candidate when he originally brought the case.
And the argument is that Vance no longer has a
stake in the case and so no standing because he's
(15:42):
no longer a candidate. And then there was a lot
of discussion about, well, is he going to run for president.
I don't think this standing argument is going anywhere, but
it's interesting, so tell us about it.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
So Ramon Martinez was the man appointed by the court
to defend the law when the government declined to do so,
and he opened by saying, this case is a big deal.
You know, anytime you're being asked to overturn a president
that's twenty five years old, should be very hesitant. You
should make sure that this is a case that's jurisdictionally sound.
And he basically said it's not for two reasons. One,
(16:16):
so this case was brought by some individuals JD. Vance
and Congressman Chevaux from Ohio, and also by the National.
Speaker 5 (16:23):
Republican Senate Committee.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
With respect to the two individuals, one of them is
actually retired and no longer in politics. So that gets
it down to Vance, and Vance has pretty clearly said
I don't know if I'm running, or more than point,
I don't currently have a plan to run. I mean,
apparently he was recently quoted saying I might run, I
might not run. So mister Martinez's argument was, well, if
that's the case, its case isn't ripe. We don't know
(16:46):
if he's running, so there's no candidate here to bring it,
and therefore there's no plaintiff. He's not a good plaintiff
because whether he's going to run a speculative, he doesn't
clearly have a stake in this case. And then he
met Martinez makes the point that the reason this case
goes directly from the district court, it's jump by a
three judge panel. There was an appeal within the Sixth Circuit,
(17:07):
But the jurisdictional basis for this going to the Supreme
Court is the federal campaign financial and gives sort of
a special ability to go directly to the Supreme Court
to cases that burden voters, certain other special groups, and
the national party committees. And his argument is based on
a much older Supreme Court case. The only national committees
(17:29):
that get that right are the two top committees, the
Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee, And he
points out there was a decision on the Supreme Court
back around nineteen eighty that said that the Democratic Senate
Campaign Committee couldn't take advantage of that law, and so
his point is the NRSC, the National Republican Senate Campaign
Committee can't do it either. So it's basically making the
(17:50):
argument that there's either no standing or a lack of jurisdiction.
Jd Vance could use that, but he's not a candidate.
Speaker 5 (17:57):
He can't.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
So there were some back and forth on that, but
it does seem unlikely that well, you never know what
the Supreme Court, but most of almost all of the
oral argument was really focused on the merits of the case.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
It doesn't seem as clear as in other cases. But
can you tell where the justices are on this? Gorsuch
didn't even ask a question.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
It's worth pointing out that in every single campaign finance
case the Court has taken since Chief Justice Roberts became
Chief Justice and Justice Alito joined the Court, the attack
on campaign finance law has won.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
That's about eight cases.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
And turn it around, and there's not been a single
case that the Supreme Court has taken since two thousand
and five on campaign finance law where the law was sustained.
That's all I think I need to say about that.
So the track record, the Court hasn't upheld a campaign
finance law federal or state since around two thousand and three.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Okay, then, so then what would be the effect of
getting rid of these federal caps. There are some predictions
that it will come completely reshaped TV advertising for congressional races.
Speaker 5 (19:05):
I think that's unlikely. Honestly.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
I think the system that we have had for the
last roughly fifteen years, since the emergence of super PACs
in a big way around twenty ten twenty twelve, I
don't know that it's going to change that much. I mean,
I think right now many of these super PACs are
candidate specific superpacks, or they are super PACs that are
already run by the parties. Some of the biggest super
(19:28):
PACs are the four super PACs run by the Republican
Senate and House and Democratic Senate and House leadership.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
If you look at the top ten.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Super PACs by dollars, certainly the Senate once are always
in the top ten, and I think the House one's
often are two.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
So I don't know that there's going to be a
revolution in this.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
I mean, it's always hard to tell, and it may
take a couple of election cycles till we fully see
how it works out.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
But you know, it's hard to tell. But I doubt
they'll be a dramatic change.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
I think many have wealthy individuals just as soon would
run their money through packs that they control through super PACs,
and many candidates, I think would continue to want to
have a super pack that works just for them. Many
of our super PACs now are basically one candidate super
PACs on the other And some people do think that
maybe it will change the balance and more money will
run through the parties, and that could have some benefits
(20:22):
in terms of giving the party committees a little more
ability to kind of coordinate their candidates. Not so much
in the election, but in the government that follows.
Speaker 5 (20:32):
I think that the.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Party committees will have a bit more influence. Maybe holding
their party delegations in Congress together a bit more seems
to be lately, given parties in polarization in Congress, they
tend to hold together pretty well right now, but it
could be that at the margins parties will be a
little bit more unified in Congress.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
So if the Court uphols the caps, would you be surprised,
fall off your chair? Surprised or that's interesting surprised.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Well, probably fall off my chair. I mean when the
Court upheld this law in two thousand and one, it
was a five to four vote then. And in terms
of just the commentary of the Supreme Court, I guess
I'm not sure if Justice Barrett has written on a
big campaign finance case, but all the others Conservatives have,
and they've been rather consistently skeptical of campaign finance. There
(21:26):
was a decision in twenty twenty one. I think she
was already on the court then. I don't think she
wrote on it. She might not have participated given when
it was argued. So I'm not one hundred percent sure
about her voting pattern. But the other justices have shown
themselves to be extremely skeptical of campaign finance regulation.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Well, as you cited the history of the Roberts Court
on campaign finance, it does seem like an uphill battle
for the Democrats here. Thanks so much, rich That's Professor
Richard Ruffald of Columbia Law School coming up. Next on
the Bloomberg Law Show, A golden doodle in a custody
(22:04):
battle is the subject of a case that's made its
way through four of Delaware's courts. I'm June Grosso. When
you're listening to Bloomberg, there's.
Speaker 5 (22:15):
No easy way to say this, Wesley. So I'm just
gonna come right out with it. Mommy and Daddy is
putting out a battle these laws.
Speaker 7 (22:23):
Wesley's prophet in the outstanding issue is the custody arrangers.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
I'll a sign a veterinary behaviorist.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Wesley is on the verge of psychological disarray.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
The movie Who Gets the Dog tells the story of
a couple who are divorcing and fight each other in
court to get custody of their beloved dog, Wesley. It
may seem a little dramatic, but it's not that far
from real life. In fact, the custody battle over Wesley
mirrors the battle over Tucker, a golden doodle whose owners
(22:56):
broke up in twenty twenty two and are still fighting
in court over who gets to keep him. Tucker's case
has been through every level of state court in Delaware.
Justice of the Peace, Court of Common Please, Delaware Superior Court,
and the Chancery Court, Delaware's elite business court, and now
(23:16):
his case is being appealed to the state's highest court,
the Delaware Supreme Court. Joining me is Jennifer Kay Bloomberg
Law Senior correspondent who has been following Tucker's saga. So
Jennifer tell us about the custody battle for Tucker.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
So let's just establish, in case anyone hasn't walked around
their neighborhood recently, what a golden doodle is. The golden
doodle is one of these very trendy doodle breeds.
Speaker 8 (23:43):
They're very popular.
Speaker 7 (23:44):
My neighborhood has at least four of them. A mix
between a golden Retriever and a poodle and the result
is a very curly haired, very energetic and affectionate dog.
This one is named Tucker. There is a picture in
the court violins.
Speaker 8 (24:00):
Very cute dog.
Speaker 7 (24:01):
So his owners began dating in twenty eighteen, and they
moved in together in the following year, and then in
twenty twenty, the ex boyfriend's daughter brought Tucker home as
a gift for him, and Tucker was just a member
of the family until this couple broke up in May
(24:21):
of twenty twenty two. They were never married, so that's
an important detail here. If they had been married, they
would have gone to family court and they would have
split all the marital property as normally under Delaware law,
and they would have worked out some sort of custody
arrangement for Tucker, and we probably would never have heard
about him. But that's not what happened because they weren't married.
(24:43):
So Delaware law allows family court to take into consideration
the best interest of an animal, a companion animal when
there's a divorce involved. But since there wasn't a divorce here,
this couple first went to a Justice of the Peace
court in twenty twenty two to try to sort out
who the dog belonged to. That first court found that
(25:06):
the ex girlfriend was the rightful owner, but to subsequent
state courts, the Court of Common Pleased and the Delaware
Superior Court found actually that they've shared a joint ownership.
Speaker 8 (25:18):
Of the dog, and so that they would have to
work out some sort.
Speaker 7 (25:20):
Of arrangement, and since they really could not agree, they
ended up in chancery court about a year ago, a
little over a year ago, asking the chancery court to
figure out what to do and just again to remind
some of your listeners. Chancery court is where you go
in Delaware when you have a civil case where damages
really aren't the answer.
Speaker 8 (25:40):
You're looking for a judge to figure out what's equitable, like.
Speaker 7 (25:43):
What's happened, was what happened fair? And how to fix
it if it wasn't fair.
Speaker 8 (25:49):
So that's kind of where we are now with this case.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
And there was a hearing where a veterinary behaviorist testified.
Speaker 8 (25:56):
In the spring.
Speaker 7 (25:57):
The chancery court said, look, you guys really can't agree. Fine,
we will follow the procedures under Delaware property law. Because
Delaware law looks at dogs as property. I don't want
any of your listeners to come at me. That is
not my personal opinion. I know people have very strong
feelings about their for children, but their property, and under
Delaware law, there's property and you really can't agree about
(26:20):
who gets what the rule is to partition it. Sometimes
that means actually splitting something in half. No one is
suggesting that Tucker should be split in half here, So
the court left it up to this estranged couple to
figure out how are you going to split Tucker?
Speaker 8 (26:34):
Like this is what the law says.
Speaker 7 (26:36):
We need to partition this property. You need to figure
out what that means. They could not figure out what
it meant. The couple just could not figure it out.
So they came back to court and a part of
that was an evidentiary hearing about who's actually taking care
of Tucker? Who did what when this couple was actually
living together that was three years ago. Now what is
(26:57):
Tucker's health and well being at this point? And that's
where the veterinary behaviorist came in and said, well, you know, Tucker,
I think, like a lot.
Speaker 8 (27:06):
Of doodles, has a few issues. He's got some anxiety.
Speaker 7 (27:09):
He doesn't really deal with changes his routine all that well,
So that's where the evaluation of Tucker came in. But
the court ultimately decided, in this case, if you really
can't agree what partition is going to mean is a
private auction. It's just going to be this estranged couple,
just the two of them. Whoever is the highest bidder,
(27:29):
We'll go home with Tucker and the other person will
get compensation.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
So the judge then decided not to base it on
Tucker's best interests.
Speaker 7 (27:39):
That's right, And that's a really interesting point because that
is kind of different from the trend in a lot
of these cases, and there are more and more of
them all the time, even in situations where people aren't
romantically involved. There was a trial in Philadelphia recently over
a cat named Gary to ex roommates. Each of them
(28:03):
wanted Gary. What some courts are looking at is what's
in the best interests.
Speaker 8 (28:08):
Of the animal.
Speaker 7 (28:09):
They're looking at them as a little bit more than property,
and they're kind of borrowing from these state laws in Delaware,
in California and New York in other places where if
there's a divorce the companion animal, the pet will be
evaluated under the question of what's in the best interest
of the animal before deciding who is going.
Speaker 8 (28:30):
To take it. So some courts have applied that.
Speaker 7 (28:33):
Standard in these other cases where you have a couple
that weren't married, or you know, it's roommates, there's no
romantic relationship.
Speaker 8 (28:43):
But here the chancery court judge says, you.
Speaker 7 (28:45):
Know, I see what other courts are doing, but I'm
not convinced that the best interest standard.
Speaker 8 (28:50):
Is the way to go here.
Speaker 7 (28:51):
What Delaware law calls for is a partition, which is
an auction that will maximize the value of the property,
and there's no reason to move away from that default.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
I mean, just how does the auction work. Is the
bidding open and it keeps going up and up or
is it sealed bids?
Speaker 7 (29:09):
So again, unfortunately, the court is kind of stuck with
putting it to a couple that really are not getting
along to figure.
Speaker 8 (29:19):
Out what to do.
Speaker 7 (29:20):
A partition trustee has been appointed by the court, a
third party attorney, if you will, but they haven't gotten
to that point yet because the ex boyfriend has sought
to appeal this ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court in
a mid case appeal basically an interlocatory review. He wants
to stop the auction and have a high court consider
the case before he potentially loses Tucker.
Speaker 8 (29:42):
This couple, I think the legal term here really is
this is a very bad breakup.
Speaker 7 (29:48):
They've also been fighting over other property. According to the
court documents, they've actually been fighting over actual literal property
and threatened litigation over something that they all so.
Speaker 8 (30:00):
Had bought while they were together. So it's not just
Tucker that they're fighting over.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
As I understand it, the woman hasn't seen Tucker since
the breakup, so best interests, I guess if Tucker has
separation anxiety and distress, would play them with a man.
Speaker 8 (30:16):
It's very much a he said, she said, kind of situation.
If you go into the briefs.
Speaker 7 (30:20):
The ex girlfriend said Tucker was her companion animal, her
support animal during cancer treatments while she was still in
the relationship, but then the ex boyfriend after the breakup
that he took Tucker out of state and prevented her
from seeing him all this time.
Speaker 8 (30:36):
The ex boyfriend.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
Says, no, you know, this dog was again a gift
originally from my daughter. You know, he was abandoned by
the ex girlfriend when we broke up.
Speaker 8 (30:46):
He's been my best buddy this whole time. I care
for him all the time.
Speaker 7 (30:50):
And it's really the ex boyfriend saying, you really need
to look at the best interests of Tucker here, whereas
the ex girlfriend is saying, you know, this was property
we both shared and we need to we need to
come to a resolution.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
So what's the next step. The ex boyfriend is appealing, So.
Speaker 7 (31:05):
The ex boyfriend filed a motion for an interlocatory appeal
is kind of asking the Chancery court, can we have
the Delaware Supreme Court step in here, even though we
haven't gone through a final order, and the Chancery Court
denied that. So where he's left now is he could
go to the Delaware Supreme Court on his own and
ask the justices to take his case kind of mid case,
(31:25):
to review it. The justices could decide to do that,
They could deny him and tell him that he has
to wait until the auction happens, which is where the
Chancery Court said the case should go. The Chancery Court
has said, look, you've had the dog all this time,
so you won't be harmed by putting a hold on
the auction. But the ex girlfriend will be harmed because
she hasn't seen the dog in three years, and a
(31:48):
dog only lives so long. You know, this dog with
a puppy in twenty twenty when it was first acquired,
then it's already five six years old.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
The cost involved if they've been through every level of
Delaware court and now possibly the Delaware Supreme Court, I mean,
what are the costs involved here for attorneys, fees and
expert witnesses.
Speaker 7 (32:12):
I don't know a dollar figure for what these people
are spending individually, but what the ex boyfriend has said
in his briefs is that. You know, he's already had
to pay thirty five thousand dollars to the ex girlfriend
over the other property that they've been fighting over that
they reached a kind of settlement over that, and he says, look,
she wants an auction because she knows that she has
(32:35):
the superior finances compared to me.
Speaker 8 (32:37):
So that's not fair.
Speaker 7 (32:39):
You know, we aren't on equal footing here.
Speaker 8 (32:41):
Again, I can't.
Speaker 7 (32:41):
Speak to what exactly each of these parties is spending,
but it has to be a lot. If you've gone
through basically every level of Delaware State court except family court,
and the only reason you haven't gone to family court
is because you weren't married.
Speaker 8 (32:54):
In the first place.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
So is it unusual for the chancery court to be
sorting out dispute so over animals?
Speaker 7 (33:02):
Most people probably if they know Delaware Chancery Court, they
know it, probably because of Elon.
Speaker 8 (33:07):
Musk over the last couple of years.
Speaker 7 (33:09):
This is the court that told him, no, you can't
have fifty six billion dollars as your pay package as
being the tesla ceo. That's a case that is before
the Delaware Supreme Court right now. It's also become very
unpopular in certain corporate circles over some other court rulings.
That's a largely stemming from its role as a court
of equity. Again, you go here when damages aren't necessarily
(33:34):
going to fix the problem. You need to figure out
was a transaction fair, and if it wasn't, how to
fix it. But because it's a court of equity, it
also has this other role where it has to decide
local property cases, and that's where you end up with
cases like Tucker. You know you and I spoke earlier
this year about another case where Elon.
Speaker 8 (33:55):
Musk's judge, the one that he probably hates.
Speaker 7 (33:58):
Most in the country, had to decide what to do
with a man who said, my Clydesdale, my horse, and
I were in a car accident. The horse was euthanized
and taken to a landfill without my consent, and now
I want the horse back because I don't want to
bury it in a landfill. And so she had to
decide that while also deciding matters pertaining to Elon Musk.
(34:19):
So it can be this really interesting court where you
have very very important corporate questions but also very very
important questions to like the local litigants that just want
to do what's best for their pet. And you know,
it's interesting that the judge in this case, Vice Chancellor
Bonnie David. One of the other big corporate cases that's
on her docket involves Fox News and the big settlement,
(34:42):
the eight hundred million dollars settlement that it had to
reach over defamation claims stemming from the twenty twenty election
broadcasts that it made. So she also has quite a
bit on her docket. But she, in her opinions, has
cited a number of cases from other state courts and
a lot of them involve pets that were acquired by
(35:02):
a couple who didn't get married so they couldn't go
through family court. And it's interesting that a lot of
them kind of follow a similar path that they take
years to figure out, and you really have to think
about it and in terms of like how many dog
years is this case going to take, because if it
can take like four or five human years, that's a
long time for a dog. If this auction moves forward,
(35:24):
it's unclear.
Speaker 8 (35:25):
Still, like one, exactly how that would.
Speaker 7 (35:28):
Look to how much it would cost? And then three,
how are you going to enforce it? Like is a
deputy going to show up at someone's house for the dog,
and then if you appeal it, what happens to the
dog in the meantime. There's a lot of unanswered questions here,
and we're talking about it because this is a case
that is setting all kinds of precedent for the chance
of record in these property disputes. Is really the first
(35:49):
time it's had to deal with a partition case involving
a living, breathing being.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
So now pre nups have to include if we have
a pet, what happened to the pet.
Speaker 7 (36:00):
You're joking, but that is actually what an animal law
expert and attorney practicing in the animal laws here told me.
Speaker 8 (36:06):
She said, Yeah, you have.
Speaker 7 (36:08):
To really think about these things much like a prenup,
even if you are just roommates, there's no romantic relationship.
If you get a pet with someone, you need to
make a contract so that you can plan for what
happens when you're no longer living together, which I think
absolutely no one thinks about when they're looking at a
kitten or a puppy.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Well, you'll have to let us know what happens to Tucker.
Thanks so much, Jennifer. That's Bloomberg law. Senior Correspondent Jennifer k.
And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
(36:50):
And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
The Supreme Court is considering a Republican led effort to
erase yet another campaign finance regulation, this time the federal
caps that limit how much political parties can spend in
coordination with candidates for Congress. It's the latest in a
line of cases where the conservative majority has upended congressionally
(00:31):
enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections,
and two hours of oral arguments showed the entrenched divisions
between the liberal and conservative justices over campaign finance restrictions.
Liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor said that every time the Court interferes,
(00:52):
it makes matters worse.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
You're telling us that citizens United and McCutcheon ended up
yes in amplifying the voice of corporations, but diminsion sing
another voice, that of the party. Now you want to
now tinker some more and try to raise the voice
of one party. Our tinkering causes more harm than it
(01:17):
does good, because once we take off this coordinated expenditure limits,
then what's left. What's left is nothing, no control whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
While Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the spending limits
have hurt political parties in an era of unlimited spending
by other organizations.
Speaker 4 (01:47):
That's the real source of the disadvantage. Right, you can
give huge money to the outside group, but you can't
give huge money of the party. So the parties are
very much weakened compared to the outside groups.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
And Chief Justice John Roberts, a potentially pivotal vote, said
that he didn't see much distinction between contribution limits, which
the Court has long upheld, and caps on coordinated expenditures.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
It seems to me that that's kind of a fiction
that you know, they're just coordinating expenditures, they're not making
direct contributions.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
I don't know in substance what the difference is.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Doing away with the caps would overturn a quarter century
old precedent in a week when it appears that the
Court will also be overturning a ninety year old president
in a case involving President Trump's ability to fire the
heads of independent agencies. Joining me is elections law expert
Richard Brefald, a professor at Columbia Law School. Rich Well,
(02:46):
you start by explaining the federal caps on spending by
political parties in coordination with candidates.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
So the Federal Ussian Campaign Act, going back to the
nineteen seventies when it was enacted in the aftermath of Hortegate,
places limits on donations to candidates, and it also places
limits on donations to parties. It does something else, It
places limits on how much parties can give to candidates,
on the theory that donors, once they max out on
(03:16):
how much the donor can give directly to a candidate,
will then just give to a party to channel the
money to a candidate. So there's a limit on how
much the parties can give to their candidates. And that
comes up in two ways. One is a literal limit
on contributions actually writing a check, but the parties are
also allowed to engage in their own spending in supportive candidates,
(03:37):
and that's called coordinated expenditures. In other words, the party
does the spending. They don't give the candidate a check,
but they do spending to promote the candidate. Parties are
allowed to do that, but the law places a limit
on how much money they can spend supporting candidates. And
again for the same idea that if there is no
limit on how much they could support candidates through spending.
(03:58):
Once again, donors who once they max out on the
direct donation to the candidate, would then just give unlimited
amounts or very big amounts to the parties, and the
parties could then use that money to basically support their candidates.
So that's what this limit on coordinated spending does. It's
higher than the contribution limit, and it varies from state
(04:19):
to state based on the population of the state. But
parties are allowed to do this in a way that
other organizations are not. Packs are not allowed to coordinate
at all with candidates. So parties get this extra permission
to support the candidates directly, but with a cap on it.
And what's going on in this case is the National
Republican Senate Campaign Committee and JD. Vance, who this case
(04:41):
began was a Senator and a Congressman from Ohio who
I think has since retired, have all brought suit challenging
this limit on the ability of parties to coordinate their
spending with candidates. I should say almost twenty five years ago.
The Supreme Court upheld this limit in a case called
Color a Republican Aside in two thousand and one, and
(05:02):
the Court said yes because of the danger of conduits
of party serving as conduits for donor support. These limits
make sense and are constitutional. Well, the Sperreme Court is
being asked basically now is to overturn that decision.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
The liberal justices had concerns, and one that lifting the
limits on party spending would lead to quid pro quo bribery,
so wealthy donors could bypass the individual contribution limits by
donating through parties instead.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
I mean that is the major concern of the liberal
justices and of the call of the campaign finance reform
community as a whole, is that this will put another
hole in the campaign finance laws and make it easier
for wealthy donors to channel money to candidates. There's still
limits on their ability to give directly, but this would
enable them to give through the parties and so that
(05:55):
money would still get to candidate. So yeah, that is
the core concern. A second con is, depending on how
the Court writes this decision, it could be the green
light for further challenges to other aspects of a campaign
finance laws depending on exactly how.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
They write this.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
So it's both upfront making it easier to channel money
from donors to candidates and also yet one more case,
eroding Congress's ability to place limits on campaign money.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
What was your take on Justice Soda Mayor telling Nold Francisco,
the attorney for the Republicans here, that Elon Musk got
his position at DOGE through a quid pro quote.
Speaker 6 (06:35):
More speech is always.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
Suggests that the fact that one major donor to the
current president, the most major donor to the current current president,
got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the
new administration does not give the appearance.
Speaker 5 (07:02):
With pro quote, Honor.
Speaker 6 (07:03):
I'm not a one hundred percent sure about the example
that you're looking at, but if I am familiar, if
I think I know what you're talking about, I have
a hard time thinking that his salary that he drew
from the federal government was an effective quid pro quote bribery,
which may be why nobody has even remotely suggested that.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Maybe not the salary, but certainly the lucrative government contracts
might be.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
I mean, I think it's fair to say that the
Elon must was by any stretch Trump's biggest supporter, unless
the biggest financial supporter in the last election, somewhere in
the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars, and I think
that allowed him to ask Trump for special favors, including
running Doge, which itself you know, obviously he didn't get
paid for running Doge, but it put it in a
(07:49):
position to influence the personnel and the policies of a
lot of agencies that have regulatory functions over a lot
of his activities, whether it's the SEC or NASA or
other organizations that can affect the industries and businesses that
he has.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
The administration and the Republicans argument centers on free speech
rights as these campaign finance cases since Citizens United have
done tell us more about that argument.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
The essential argument is that this is a limit on
the ability of parties to speak and that you don't
need it. That the combination of disclosure laws, anti bribery laws,
and limits on literally earmarking, and that's the term, let's
use a donation that a donor gives to a party
to be used for a candidate.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
That that's enough.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
That those three things banning bribes, requiring disclosure, and saying
what a donor gives a party a donation saying they
can't literally say this is going to candidate so and so,
that that's enough, and that to go beyond that is
to constrain the ability of parties as free speech actors,
as First Amendment actors to participate in the political process.
(09:00):
What do you think, So it's hard to say that
this is a big constraint. Parties are free to participate
in the process. In a fairly controversial decison thirty years ago,
the Supreme Court said that parties are capable of engaging
in independent spending. That parties can promote their candidates just
as long as they don't coordinate with them, just as
long as they don't actually sit down with them and say,
what do you want us to say, How do you
(09:21):
want us to say it, what media do you want
to use? So the court, you know, thirty years ago,
created this vehicle for unlimited party participation in elections. So
it's hard to say that this is a big constraint.
The defenders of the law argue that in practice and
coordinated spending, the parties actually don't.
Speaker 5 (09:40):
Do a lot of literal speech.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
You're fine, they don't do a lot of actual advertising
or promoting that often what it's being used is just
to help the candidates pay their bills. So the candidate
you know, basically booked a block of hotels is during
a campaign swing or you know, was paying for literature
or to the candidates, you know, campaign director or makes
the commitment buy and then gives the party the bill
(10:03):
and says pay this. That's at least the argument that
the defenders of the law we're making that in practice,
coordinated expenditures are not parties getting out there and saying
this is the party message. But there are de facto
contributions to help the candidates to freight their bills.
Speaker 5 (10:19):
That gets constitutional protection.
Speaker 1 (10:20):
It still enables candidates the campaign, and there's a First
Amendment interest, but it's hard to see that this is
really squeezing the party's ability to have its own voice.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Just as Brett Kavanaugh said, you can give huge money
to the outside group, but you can't give huge money
to the party, and so the parties are very much
weakened compared to the outside group. Is he talking about
packs here, is it?
Speaker 5 (10:43):
Yes, he's talking about super PACs.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
And indeed, that is an argument that many people have
raised who don't like this law, including people who might
liberals or reformers. They say this law might have made
some sense when it was first adopted, but given the
proliferation of super PACs and other outside groups, we be
better off if parties actually had a bigger voice, that
parties can play a coordination function, that parties maybe can
(11:06):
be a little less extreme than some outside groups, that
parties have more of an interest in governance rather than
being single issue and that actually if we could start
all over now that the outside groups have kind of
unlimited voice, that anything that strengthens the parties is actually
a good thing. And that you see many people who
are not conservatives who are taking that position, who are
(11:27):
not First Amendment absolutists, but think that in fact, the
campaign financystem has gotten unbalanced and it would actually be
good to strengthen the role of parties and this could
do that.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Professor Richard breflt. So,
how is the Court likely to rule? I'm Juan Grasso,
and you're listening to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court this week
weighed Republican calls for a fresh rollback of campaign finance regulations,
questioning federal caps that limit spending by political parties in
(11:59):
coordinat with candidates. I've been talking to Columbia Law School
professor Richard Brefault, So, rich the Chief Justice suggested that
he didn't see much difference between the contribution limits, which
the Court has long upheld, and the caps on coordinated expenditures.
(12:19):
Do you think there's a chance that the Chief won't
vote with the super conservatives on this to do away
with the caps, or there's.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
A chance that it goes the other way, and that
once they begin to dismantle limits on coordinate expenditure as
contributional limits are next. And there was an interesting point
where some of the justices ask mister Francisco, who is
the lawyer for the National publican Centate Campaign Committee, well
what about that? What about limits on contributions? And he says,
I don't want to get into that right now. I
kind of want to reserve the right to challenge that
(12:51):
down the road. And indeed, some of the liberal justices
and the lawyer for people who are defending this law,
which I should say is not the government as a
federal statute, but the Trump administration will not defend it.
In fact, they actually joined in the attack on it.
So the statue was being defended by two lawyers. One
was a lawyer pointed about the court to speak for
the statute. In addition, the lawyer for the Democratic Party
(13:14):
for Democratic Organizations also was given permission to argue, and
they both argue that basically this is the bate and
switch that's been going on in campaign finance law for
a long time.
Speaker 5 (13:24):
Someone says, well, given changes in the law.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
This particular restriction doesn't make any sense, so you should
strike it down. And then they come along and say, well,
now you're struck down this one. The next restriction doesn't
make any sense either, so strike that down. And there
seems to be a kind of a salami tactic aspect
to this. A number of the justices are very, very skeptical,
more than skeptical about the constitutionality of the contribution restrictions.
(13:46):
They don't have to decide that in this case, but
the Court has traditionally treated coordinated expenditures as the constitutional
equivalent of contributions. If they're going to start protecting coordinated
expenditures more, saying that they're more protected from limitation, it's
not a big leap to say that that kind of
thinking would also apply to the contribution restrictions.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
The Republicans are bringing this challenge to do away with
the federal caps, so one assumes that they would benefit
more than the Democrats who are fighting to keep the caps.
But Justice Amy Cony Barrett asked the attorney for the
Democrats which party would ultimately benefit from a ruling. If
(14:29):
there isn't an imbalance in who this benefits, why would
the DNC be here? And I believe that was the
only question she asked.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
I think what Barrett was getting at is that the
reason you're here, Elias, the.
Speaker 5 (14:42):
Impressive hear is for pure partisan reasons.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
That you have less of a merits basis for opposing this,
and more you're doing it because you think that this
will help the Republicans and if the first knowne requires
it, it doesn't matter who's helped, they're not. I think there
was also some sort of some effort to figure out
why is it if this this is a better restriction
on parties, and in fact, why does one party want
to strike it down a one party want to keep it?
(15:05):
And does it that mean that it operates unevenly across
the party? Is not clear that it does, but if
it operates unevenly, it suggests that you're opposing it for
partisan reasons rather than on a kind of a merits
based this is good for democracy.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
There was also a standing argument that the attorney appointed
to defend the law made. It's centered on Vice President JD. Vance,
who was a Senate candidate when he originally brought the case.
And the argument is that Vance no longer has a
stake in the case and so no standing because he's
(15:42):
no longer a candidate. And then there was a lot
of discussion about, well, is he going to run for president.
I don't think this standing argument is going anywhere, but
it's interesting, so tell us about it.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
So Ramon Martinez was the man appointed by the court
to defend the law when the government declined to do so,
and he opened by saying, this case is a big deal.
You know, anytime you're being asked to overturn a president
that's twenty five years old, should be very hesitant. You
should make sure that this is a case that's jurisdictionally sound.
And he basically said it's not for two reasons. One,
(16:16):
so this case was brought by some individuals JD. Vance
and Congressman Chevaux from Ohio, and also by the National.
Speaker 5 (16:23):
Republican Senate Committee.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
With respect to the two individuals, one of them is
actually retired and no longer in politics. So that gets
it down to Vance, and Vance has pretty clearly said
I don't know if I'm running, or more than point,
I don't currently have a plan to run. I mean,
apparently he was recently quoted saying I might run, I
might not run. So mister Martinez's argument was, well, if
that's the case, its case isn't ripe. We don't know
(16:46):
if he's running, so there's no candidate here to bring it,
and therefore there's no plaintiff. He's not a good plaintiff
because whether he's going to run a speculative, he doesn't
clearly have a stake in this case. And then he
met Martinez makes the point that the reason this case
goes directly from the district court, it's jump by a
three judge panel. There was an appeal within the Sixth Circuit,
(17:07):
But the jurisdictional basis for this going to the Supreme
Court is the federal campaign financial and gives sort of
a special ability to go directly to the Supreme Court
to cases that burden voters, certain other special groups, and
the national party committees. And his argument is based on
a much older Supreme Court case. The only national committees
(17:29):
that get that right are the two top committees, the
Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee, And he
points out there was a decision on the Supreme Court
back around nineteen eighty that said that the Democratic Senate
Campaign Committee couldn't take advantage of that law, and so
his point is the NRSC, the National Republican Senate Campaign
Committee can't do it either. So it's basically making the
(17:50):
argument that there's either no standing or a lack of jurisdiction.
Jd Vance could use that, but he's not a candidate.
Speaker 5 (17:57):
He can't.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
So there were some back and forth on that, but
it does seem unlikely that well, you never know what
the Supreme Court, but most of almost all of the
oral argument was really focused on the merits of the case.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
It doesn't seem as clear as in other cases. But
can you tell where the justices are on this? Gorsuch
didn't even ask a question.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
It's worth pointing out that in every single campaign finance
case the Court has taken since Chief Justice Roberts became
Chief Justice and Justice Alito joined the Court, the attack
on campaign finance law has won.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
That's about eight cases.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
And turn it around, and there's not been a single
case that the Supreme Court has taken since two thousand
and five on campaign finance law where the law was sustained.
That's all I think I need to say about that.
So the track record, the Court hasn't upheld a campaign
finance law federal or state since around two thousand and three.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Okay, then, so then what would be the effect of
getting rid of these federal caps. There are some predictions
that it will come completely reshaped TV advertising for congressional races.
Speaker 5 (19:05):
I think that's unlikely. Honestly.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
I think the system that we have had for the
last roughly fifteen years, since the emergence of super PACs
in a big way around twenty ten twenty twelve, I
don't know that it's going to change that much. I mean,
I think right now many of these super PACs are
candidate specific superpacks, or they are super PACs that are
already run by the parties. Some of the biggest super
(19:28):
PACs are the four super PACs run by the Republican
Senate and House and Democratic Senate and House leadership.
Speaker 5 (19:36):
If you look at the top ten.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Super PACs by dollars, certainly the Senate once are always
in the top ten, and I think the House one's
often are two.
Speaker 5 (19:44):
So I don't know that there's going to be a
revolution in this.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
I mean, it's always hard to tell, and it may
take a couple of election cycles till we fully see
how it works out.
Speaker 5 (19:53):
But you know, it's hard to tell. But I doubt
they'll be a dramatic change.
Speaker 1 (19:59):
I think many have wealthy individuals just as soon would
run their money through packs that they control through super PACs,
and many candidates, I think would continue to want to
have a super pack that works just for them. Many
of our super PACs now are basically one candidate super
PACs on the other And some people do think that
maybe it will change the balance and more money will
run through the parties, and that could have some benefits
(20:22):
in terms of giving the party committees a little more
ability to kind of coordinate their candidates. Not so much
in the election, but in the government that follows.
Speaker 5 (20:32):
I think that the.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Party committees will have a bit more influence. Maybe holding
their party delegations in Congress together a bit more seems
to be lately, given parties in polarization in Congress, they
tend to hold together pretty well right now, but it
could be that at the margins parties will be a
little bit more unified in Congress.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
So if the Court uphols the caps, would you be surprised,
fall off your chair? Surprised or that's interesting surprised.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Well, probably fall off my chair. I mean when the
Court upheld this law in two thousand and one, it
was a five to four vote then. And in terms
of just the commentary of the Supreme Court, I guess
I'm not sure if Justice Barrett has written on a
big campaign finance case, but all the others Conservatives have,
and they've been rather consistently skeptical of campaign finance. There
(21:26):
was a decision in twenty twenty one. I think she
was already on the court then. I don't think she
wrote on it. She might not have participated given when
it was argued. So I'm not one hundred percent sure
about her voting pattern. But the other justices have shown
themselves to be extremely skeptical of campaign finance regulation.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Well, as you cited the history of the Roberts Court
on campaign finance, it does seem like an uphill battle
for the Democrats here. Thanks so much, rich That's Professor
Richard Ruffald of Columbia Law School coming up. Next on
the Bloomberg Law Show, A golden doodle in a custody
(22:04):
battle is the subject of a case that's made its
way through four of Delaware's courts. I'm June Grosso. When
you're listening to Bloomberg, there's.
Speaker 5 (22:15):
No easy way to say this, Wesley. So I'm just
gonna come right out with it. Mommy and Daddy is
putting out a battle these laws.
Speaker 7 (22:23):
Wesley's prophet in the outstanding issue is the custody arrangers.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
I'll a sign a veterinary behaviorist.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Wesley is on the verge of psychological disarray.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
The movie Who Gets the Dog tells the story of
a couple who are divorcing and fight each other in
court to get custody of their beloved dog, Wesley. It
may seem a little dramatic, but it's not that far
from real life. In fact, the custody battle over Wesley
mirrors the battle over Tucker, a golden doodle whose owners
(22:56):
broke up in twenty twenty two and are still fighting
in court over who gets to keep him. Tucker's case
has been through every level of state court in Delaware.
Justice of the Peace, Court of Common Please, Delaware Superior Court,
and the Chancery Court, Delaware's elite business court, and now
(23:16):
his case is being appealed to the state's highest court,
the Delaware Supreme Court. Joining me is Jennifer Kay Bloomberg
Law Senior correspondent who has been following Tucker's saga. So
Jennifer tell us about the custody battle for Tucker.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
So let's just establish, in case anyone hasn't walked around
their neighborhood recently, what a golden doodle is. The golden
doodle is one of these very trendy doodle breeds.
Speaker 8 (23:43):
They're very popular.
Speaker 7 (23:44):
My neighborhood has at least four of them. A mix
between a golden Retriever and a poodle and the result
is a very curly haired, very energetic and affectionate dog.
This one is named Tucker. There is a picture in
the court violins.
Speaker 8 (24:00):
Very cute dog.
Speaker 7 (24:01):
So his owners began dating in twenty eighteen, and they
moved in together in the following year, and then in
twenty twenty, the ex boyfriend's daughter brought Tucker home as
a gift for him, and Tucker was just a member
of the family until this couple broke up in May
(24:21):
of twenty twenty two. They were never married, so that's
an important detail here. If they had been married, they
would have gone to family court and they would have
split all the marital property as normally under Delaware law,
and they would have worked out some sort of custody
arrangement for Tucker, and we probably would never have heard
about him. But that's not what happened because they weren't married.
(24:43):
So Delaware law allows family court to take into consideration
the best interest of an animal, a companion animal when
there's a divorce involved. But since there wasn't a divorce here,
this couple first went to a Justice of the Peace
court in twenty twenty two to try to sort out
who the dog belonged to. That first court found that
(25:06):
the ex girlfriend was the rightful owner, but to subsequent
state courts, the Court of Common Pleased and the Delaware
Superior Court found actually that they've shared a joint ownership.
Speaker 8 (25:18):
Of the dog, and so that they would have to
work out some sort.
Speaker 7 (25:20):
Of arrangement, and since they really could not agree, they
ended up in chancery court about a year ago, a
little over a year ago, asking the chancery court to
figure out what to do and just again to remind
some of your listeners. Chancery court is where you go
in Delaware when you have a civil case where damages
really aren't the answer.
Speaker 8 (25:40):
You're looking for a judge to figure out what's equitable, like.
Speaker 7 (25:43):
What's happened, was what happened fair? And how to fix
it if it wasn't fair.
Speaker 8 (25:49):
So that's kind of where we are now with this case.
Speaker 2 (25:51):
And there was a hearing where a veterinary behaviorist testified.
Speaker 8 (25:56):
In the spring.
Speaker 7 (25:57):
The chancery court said, look, you guys really can't agree. Fine,
we will follow the procedures under Delaware property law. Because
Delaware law looks at dogs as property. I don't want
any of your listeners to come at me. That is
not my personal opinion. I know people have very strong
feelings about their for children, but their property, and under
Delaware law, there's property and you really can't agree about
(26:20):
who gets what the rule is to partition it. Sometimes
that means actually splitting something in half. No one is
suggesting that Tucker should be split in half here, So
the court left it up to this estranged couple to
figure out how are you going to split Tucker?
Speaker 8 (26:34):
Like this is what the law says.
Speaker 7 (26:36):
We need to partition this property. You need to figure
out what that means. They could not figure out what
it meant. The couple just could not figure it out.
So they came back to court and a part of
that was an evidentiary hearing about who's actually taking care
of Tucker? Who did what when this couple was actually
living together that was three years ago. Now what is
(26:57):
Tucker's health and well being at this point? And that's
where the veterinary behaviorist came in and said, well, you know, Tucker,
I think, like a lot.
Speaker 8 (27:06):
Of doodles, has a few issues. He's got some anxiety.
Speaker 7 (27:09):
He doesn't really deal with changes his routine all that well,
So that's where the evaluation of Tucker came in. But
the court ultimately decided, in this case, if you really
can't agree what partition is going to mean is a
private auction. It's just going to be this estranged couple,
just the two of them. Whoever is the highest bidder,
(27:29):
We'll go home with Tucker and the other person will
get compensation.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
So the judge then decided not to base it on
Tucker's best interests.
Speaker 7 (27:39):
That's right, And that's a really interesting point because that
is kind of different from the trend in a lot
of these cases, and there are more and more of
them all the time, even in situations where people aren't
romantically involved. There was a trial in Philadelphia recently over
a cat named Gary to ex roommates. Each of them
(28:03):
wanted Gary. What some courts are looking at is what's
in the best interests.
Speaker 8 (28:08):
Of the animal.
Speaker 7 (28:09):
They're looking at them as a little bit more than property,
and they're kind of borrowing from these state laws in Delaware,
in California and New York in other places where if
there's a divorce the companion animal, the pet will be
evaluated under the question of what's in the best interest
of the animal before deciding who is going.
Speaker 8 (28:30):
To take it. So some courts have applied that.
Speaker 7 (28:33):
Standard in these other cases where you have a couple
that weren't married, or you know, it's roommates, there's no
romantic relationship.
Speaker 8 (28:43):
But here the chancery court judge says, you.
Speaker 7 (28:45):
Know, I see what other courts are doing, but I'm
not convinced that the best interest standard.
Speaker 8 (28:50):
Is the way to go here.
Speaker 7 (28:51):
What Delaware law calls for is a partition, which is
an auction that will maximize the value of the property,
and there's no reason to move away from that default.
Speaker 2 (29:02):
I mean, just how does the auction work. Is the
bidding open and it keeps going up and up or
is it sealed bids?
Speaker 7 (29:09):
So again, unfortunately, the court is kind of stuck with
putting it to a couple that really are not getting
along to figure.
Speaker 8 (29:19):
Out what to do.
Speaker 7 (29:20):
A partition trustee has been appointed by the court, a
third party attorney, if you will, but they haven't gotten
to that point yet because the ex boyfriend has sought
to appeal this ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court in
a mid case appeal basically an interlocatory review. He wants
to stop the auction and have a high court consider
the case before he potentially loses Tucker.
Speaker 8 (29:42):
This couple, I think the legal term here really is
this is a very bad breakup.
Speaker 7 (29:48):
They've also been fighting over other property. According to the
court documents, they've actually been fighting over actual literal property
and threatened litigation over something that they all so.
Speaker 8 (30:00):
Had bought while they were together. So it's not just
Tucker that they're fighting over.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
As I understand it, the woman hasn't seen Tucker since
the breakup, so best interests, I guess if Tucker has
separation anxiety and distress, would play them with a man.
Speaker 8 (30:16):
It's very much a he said, she said, kind of situation.
If you go into the briefs.
Speaker 7 (30:20):
The ex girlfriend said Tucker was her companion animal, her
support animal during cancer treatments while she was still in
the relationship, but then the ex boyfriend after the breakup
that he took Tucker out of state and prevented her
from seeing him all this time.
Speaker 8 (30:36):
The ex boyfriend.
Speaker 7 (30:37):
Says, no, you know, this dog was again a gift
originally from my daughter. You know, he was abandoned by
the ex girlfriend when we broke up.
Speaker 8 (30:46):
He's been my best buddy this whole time. I care
for him all the time.
Speaker 7 (30:50):
And it's really the ex boyfriend saying, you really need
to look at the best interests of Tucker here, whereas
the ex girlfriend is saying, you know, this was property
we both shared and we need to we need to
come to a resolution.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
So what's the next step. The ex boyfriend is appealing, So.
Speaker 7 (31:05):
The ex boyfriend filed a motion for an interlocatory appeal
is kind of asking the Chancery court, can we have
the Delaware Supreme Court step in here, even though we
haven't gone through a final order, and the Chancery Court
denied that. So where he's left now is he could
go to the Delaware Supreme Court on his own and
ask the justices to take his case kind of mid case,
(31:25):
to review it. The justices could decide to do that,
They could deny him and tell him that he has
to wait until the auction happens, which is where the
Chancery Court said the case should go. The Chancery Court
has said, look, you've had the dog all this time,
so you won't be harmed by putting a hold on
the auction. But the ex girlfriend will be harmed because
she hasn't seen the dog in three years, and a
(31:48):
dog only lives so long. You know, this dog with
a puppy in twenty twenty when it was first acquired,
then it's already five six years old.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
The cost involved if they've been through every level of
Delaware court and now possibly the Delaware Supreme Court, I mean,
what are the costs involved here for attorneys, fees and
expert witnesses.
Speaker 7 (32:12):
I don't know a dollar figure for what these people
are spending individually, but what the ex boyfriend has said
in his briefs is that. You know, he's already had
to pay thirty five thousand dollars to the ex girlfriend
over the other property that they've been fighting over that
they reached a kind of settlement over that, and he says, look,
she wants an auction because she knows that she has
(32:35):
the superior finances compared to me.
Speaker 8 (32:37):
So that's not fair.
Speaker 7 (32:39):
You know, we aren't on equal footing here.
Speaker 8 (32:41):
Again, I can't.
Speaker 7 (32:41):
Speak to what exactly each of these parties is spending,
but it has to be a lot. If you've gone
through basically every level of Delaware State court except family court,
and the only reason you haven't gone to family court
is because you weren't married.
Speaker 8 (32:54):
In the first place.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
So is it unusual for the chancery court to be
sorting out dispute so over animals?
Speaker 7 (33:02):
Most people probably if they know Delaware Chancery Court, they
know it, probably because of Elon.
Speaker 8 (33:07):
Musk over the last couple of years.
Speaker 7 (33:09):
This is the court that told him, no, you can't
have fifty six billion dollars as your pay package as
being the tesla ceo. That's a case that is before
the Delaware Supreme Court right now. It's also become very
unpopular in certain corporate circles over some other court rulings.
That's a largely stemming from its role as a court
of equity. Again, you go here when damages aren't necessarily
(33:34):
going to fix the problem. You need to figure out
was a transaction fair, and if it wasn't, how to
fix it. But because it's a court of equity, it
also has this other role where it has to decide
local property cases, and that's where you end up with
cases like Tucker. You know you and I spoke earlier
this year about another case where Elon.
Speaker 8 (33:55):
Musk's judge, the one that he probably hates.
Speaker 7 (33:58):
Most in the country, had to decide what to do
with a man who said, my Clydesdale, my horse, and
I were in a car accident. The horse was euthanized
and taken to a landfill without my consent, and now
I want the horse back because I don't want to
bury it in a landfill. And so she had to
decide that while also deciding matters pertaining to Elon Musk.
(34:19):
So it can be this really interesting court where you
have very very important corporate questions but also very very
important questions to like the local litigants that just want
to do what's best for their pet. And you know,
it's interesting that the judge in this case, Vice Chancellor
Bonnie David. One of the other big corporate cases that's
on her docket involves Fox News and the big settlement,
(34:42):
the eight hundred million dollars settlement that it had to
reach over defamation claims stemming from the twenty twenty election
broadcasts that it made. So she also has quite a
bit on her docket. But she, in her opinions, has
cited a number of cases from other state courts and
a lot of them involve pets that were acquired by
(35:02):
a couple who didn't get married so they couldn't go
through family court. And it's interesting that a lot of
them kind of follow a similar path that they take
years to figure out, and you really have to think
about it and in terms of like how many dog
years is this case going to take, because if it
can take like four or five human years, that's a
long time for a dog. If this auction moves forward,
(35:24):
it's unclear.
Speaker 8 (35:25):
Still, like one, exactly how that would.
Speaker 7 (35:28):
Look to how much it would cost? And then three,
how are you going to enforce it? Like is a
deputy going to show up at someone's house for the dog,
and then if you appeal it, what happens to the
dog in the meantime. There's a lot of unanswered questions here,
and we're talking about it because this is a case
that is setting all kinds of precedent for the chance
of record in these property disputes. Is really the first
(35:49):
time it's had to deal with a partition case involving
a living, breathing being.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
So now pre nups have to include if we have
a pet, what happened to the pet.
Speaker 7 (36:00):
You're joking, but that is actually what an animal law
expert and attorney practicing in the animal laws here told me.
Speaker 8 (36:06):
She said, Yeah, you have.
Speaker 7 (36:08):
To really think about these things much like a prenup,
even if you are just roommates, there's no romantic relationship.
If you get a pet with someone, you need to
make a contract so that you can plan for what
happens when you're no longer living together, which I think
absolutely no one thinks about when they're looking at a
kitten or a puppy.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Well, you'll have to let us know what happens to Tucker.
Thanks so much, Jennifer. That's Bloomberg law. Senior Correspondent Jennifer k.
And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
(36:50):
And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.