A federal appeals court struck down a Federal Communications Commission rule that would have let Republican party committees buy television ads at the discounted rate Congress reserved for candidates.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled 2-1 on Tuesday, setting aside guidance the commission's Media Bureau issued in March.
That guidance told broadcasters the discount also covered ads that parties coordinate with their candidates, along with ads bought by joint fundraising committees that include party groups. The stakes rose in June, when the Supreme Court lifted limits on how much parties may spend in coordination with their own candidates.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee told supporters it could now spend "without limit in direct coordination" with every Senate campaign, according to a memo obtained by ABC News.
"[T]he practical impact is asymmetric," the memo said.
Republican committees "vastly outraised our Democrat counterparts" this cycle, the memo added, and the more a committee raises, the more it gains from unlimited coordinated spending "at preferential rates."
GOP strategist Doug Heye told ABC News the party "has been working on this for years and is poised to take a quick advantage." Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett said his own party had been "caught flat-footed."
The guidance was set to take effect Sept. 4, when the discount window opens for the November election, the court said.
It would have applied whether or not the full commission ruled on the candidates' challenge, an outcome Judge Robert King called a "Catch-22" that was "necessarily illogical and intolerable."
The commission sat on that challenge for more than three months, King wrote. At oral argument this month, an agency lawyer conceded it was "very unlikely" the commission would act before Sept. 4.
Ten days later, the chairman circulated an order that would have dismissed the challenge as an "improper vehicle" rather than decide it, King wrote.
"That is too much power for an agency," Judge James Wynn wrote in a concurring opinion.
On the merits, King wrote that for purposes of the discount, "the term 'candidate' means 'candidate.'" The guidance was "plainly contrary to law," he added.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissented, writing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the majority's reading raised First Amendment concerns.
The candidates told the court they would file a second petition if the full commission formally disposes of their application.
