In the short run, yesterday’s much-hyped Supreme Court ruling won’t mean much. Eliminating overall contribution limits will give the party committees and candidates a little extra cash in their pocket, but the campaign finance landscape is largely the same as it was when Wednesday began. It’s what might come next that would fundamentally upend the campaign financing system. The attorneys and experts studying yesterday’s McCutcheon v. FEC ruling suggest it could make vulnerable one of the bedrock rules of the campaign finance system: Caps on individual contributions to parties and candidates.
— McCutheon is significant, attorneys say, because it’s one of the first cases to focus on contributions, not expenditures (the focus of Citizens United and other cases). As one GOP finance attorney put it, campaign finance relies on three elements: rules governing expenditures, contributions, and disclosure. The courts have ripped apart most expenditure regulations; the fear among reform advocates is now they’ve turned their attention to contributions.
— Those same advocates argued that the court’s majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, reaffirmed the legality of contribution limits. But they’re also realistic: This isn’t a court that’s been kind to their way of thinking about campaign finance regulations. None would be seriously surprised if individual contribution limits came under scrutiny next.
— Here’s a possible outcome to keep an eye on, suggested by GOP campaign finance attorney William McGinley: The Supreme Court eventually rules that contribution limits are constitutional but stipulates that the current caps are far too low. Expect discussion in the coming weeks about legislative action to raise those limits (of course, as usual, don’t hold your breath waiting for legislative action).
The country’s post-Watergate campaign finance system has been turned on its head in recent years. And the changes might not be done yet.
— Alex Roarty
What We're Following See More »
A new Investor’s Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence poll shows Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump each earning 41% support. On the one hand, the poll has been skewing in Trump's favor this year, relative to other polls. But on the other, data guru Nate Silver called the IBD/TIPP poll the most accurate in 2012.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders, a loyal soldier for Hillary Clinton since he conceded the Democratic presidential nomination in July, plans to push liberal legislation with like-minded senators with or without Clinton’s support if she is elected— and to aggressively oppose appointments that do not pass muster with the party’s left wing." Sanders and other similarly inclined senators are already "plotting legislation" on climate change, prison reform, the minimum wage, and tuition-free college.
"The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use."
Baseball great Curt Schilling says he still needs to clear a challenge to Sen. Elizabeth Warren with his wife, but in the meantime, he's found something to occupy him: the former hurler is going to host a daily online radio show on Breitbart.com. "The show marks Schilling’s return to media six months after ESPN fired him for sharing an anti-transgender Facebook post."
The New Yorker has endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying that "barring some astonishment," she will become the next president. Calling Clinton "distinctly capable," the magazine excoriates Donald Trump as a candidate who "favors conspiracy theory and fantasy, deriving his knowledge from the darker recesses of the Internet and 'the shows.'" Additionally, the historical nature of the possibility of "send[ing] a woman to the White House" is not lost on the editors, who note the possibility more than once in the endorsement.