Supreme Court Gives McConnell Assist in War on Outside Groups

The Court didn’t rule as broadly on contribution limits as McConnell wanted, but McCutcheon could help political parties compete against super PACs.

National Journal
Sarah Mimms
April 2, 2014, 8:15 a.m.

The Su­preme Court ruled today that wealthy donors can con­trib­ute to as many polit­ic­al can­did­ates, com­mit­tees, and parties as they de­sire, and Sen­ate Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell, long an op­pon­ent of cam­paign fin­ance re­stric­tions and a sup­port­er of the Court’s Cit­izens United de­cision, is cel­eb­rat­ing.

The Court did not rule as broadly as Mc­Con­nell had hoped in the Mc­Cutcheon v. Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion case, which was de­cided Wed­nes­day, but its de­cision could help him in his battle against the shad­owy out­side groups that op­pose his reelec­tion and that of sev­er­al of his col­leagues.

The Court ruled Wed­nes­day in a 5-4 de­cision that the over­all lim­its on how much an in­di­vidu­al can con­trib­ute to polit­ic­al can­did­ates and com­mit­tees in a giv­en elec­tion cycle ($48,600 to can­did­ates and $74,600 to polit­ic­al com­mit­tees) vi­ol­ate the First Amend­ment.

Mc­Con­nell filed an amicus brief in the case last year ur­ging the Court to take an even broad­er view and elim­in­ate cam­paign fin­ance con­tri­bu­tion lim­its al­to­geth­er. The Court even gran­ted his at­tor­ney the op­por­tun­ity to speak dur­ing or­al ar­gu­ments, which took place in Oc­to­ber. Mc­Con­nell and his law­yer ar­gued in the brief that laws lim­it­ing cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions “re­strict the rights of speech and as­so­ci­ation of both the con­trib­ut­or and the re­cip­i­ent of the con­tri­bu­tion.”

As ex­pec­ted, the Court took a much nar­row­er view than Mc­Con­nell had hoped.

Im­port­antly for Mc­Con­nell, however, the de­cision could put at least a little more power back in­to the hands of of­fi­cial party or­gan­iz­a­tions and can­did­ates. Mc­Con­nell has made it his goal this cycle to cripple med­dling out­side groups such as the Sen­ate Con­ser­vat­ives Fund, groups that have frus­trated parties and can­did­ates for, of­ten will­ingly, go­ing off-mes­sage. The Mc­Cutcheon de­cision would al­low wealthy in­di­vidu­als, who might oth­er­wise give big to su­per PACs after hit­ting the over­all con­tri­bu­tion lim­it for, say, the 2014 cycle, to donate those funds to those who are ac­tu­ally run­ning cam­paigns on the ground. Polit­ic­al parties and can­did­ates, ad­voc­ates ar­gue, know best. Tellingly, ap­pel­lant Shaun Mc­Cutcheon was joined in the case by the Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee.

Demo­crat­ic party groups also noted that the de­cision would be help­ful, al­though the party typ­ic­ally fa­vors con­tri­bu­tion lim­its. “It is a win for na­tion­al party com­mit­tees, and na­tion­al party com­mit­tees that raise sig­ni­fic­antly more than their coun­ter­parts (we’ve out­raised the NR­SC by $20m to date) stand to do bet­ter. In ad­di­tion, this will greatly en­hance our abil­ity to raise re­sources to sup­port our voter con­tact and field pro­gram - the Ban­nock Street Pro­ject ““ in states across the coun­try,” Demo­crat­ic Sen­at­ori­al cam­paign com­mit­tee spokes­man Matt Canter said.

Mc­Con­nell praised the de­cision on Wed­nes­day. “The Su­preme Court has once again re­minded Con­gress that Amer­ic­ans have a con­sti­tu­tion­al First Amend­ment right to speak and as­so­ci­ate with polit­ic­al can­did­ates and parties of their choice. In Shaun Mc­Cutcheon v. Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion, the Court did not strike down in­di­vidu­al con­tri­bu­tion lim­its to can­did­ates, polit­ic­al ac­tion com­mit­tees, or parties. But the Court did re­cog­nize that it is the right of the in­di­vidu­al, and not the prerog­at­ive of Con­gress, to de­term­ine how many can­did­ates and parties to sup­port,” he said in a state­ment.

“Let me be clear for all those who would cri­ti­cize the de­cision: It does not per­mit one more dime to be giv­en to an in­di­vidu­al can­did­ate or a party — it just re­spects the con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of in­di­vidu­als to de­cide how many to sup­port,” Mc­Con­nell ad­ded.

But cam­paign fin­ance re­form ad­voc­ates worry that in the long run, the Mc­Cutcheon de­cision will have es­sen­tially the same ef­fect as open­ing up con­tri­bu­tion lim­its en­tirely. While it is true that today’s de­cision in Mc­Cutcheon does not give con­trib­ut­ors the right to donate more to an in­di­vidu­al can­did­ate or com­mit­tee, it does al­low in­di­vidu­al donors to give money to as many com­mit­tees and parties sup­port­ing a single can­did­ate as they de­sire.

As Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (Irvine) law pro­fess­or Richard L. Hansen noted in Slate last year, in­di­vidu­als can now make massive con­tri­bu­tions to joint fun­drais­ing com­mit­tees be­ne­fit­ing a single can­did­ate, with, say, Mc­Con­nell re­ceiv­ing the max­im­um $5,200 dona­tion dir­ectly, while the re­mainder is farmed out to loc­al and na­tion­al parties and oth­er com­mit­tees run­ning ad­vert­ising on his be­half.

What We're Following See More »
THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
52 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

DIRECT APPEAL TO MINORITIES, WOMEN
Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

THE QUESTION
How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
9 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

Source:
WEEKEND DATA DUMP
State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.

Source:
LATER TO THIS YEAR’S NADER
Jim Webb Rules Out Independent Bid
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

UPDATED: Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) will not be playing the role of Ralph Nader in this year’s election. Speaking in Dallas today, Webb said, “We looked at the possibility of an independent candidacy. Theoretically, it could be done, but it is enormously costly and time sensitive, and I don’t see the fundraising trajectory where we could make a realistic run.”

Source:
×