The Supreme Court Takes Another Step to Advance Money in Politics

A Supreme Court ruling Wednesday in the biggest campaign finance case since Citizens United has opened the door even further for unlimited money in politics.

David Barrows, of Washington, DC, waves a flag with corporate logos and fake money during a rally against money in politics outside the Supreme Court October 8, 2013 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
April 2, 2014, 7:35 a.m.

A Su­preme Court rul­ing Wed­nes­day in the biggest cam­paign fin­ance case since Cit­izens United has opened the door even wider for un­lim­ited money in polit­ics.

The Court, which ruled 5-4 in Mc­Cutcheon v. FEC, ef­fect­ively elim­in­ated over­all lim­its on the amount in­di­vidu­als can donate to can­did­ates. GOP donor and Alabama busi­ness­man Shaun Mc­Cutcheon joined with the Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee to chal­lenge the lim­its as a vi­ol­a­tion of First Amend­ment rights.

Ad­voc­ates for cam­paign fin­ance re­form de­cried the rul­ing. “That today’s de­cision uses the First Amend­ment as a jus­ti­fic­a­tion makes a mock­ery of the Con­sti­tu­tion,” J. Ger­ald Hebert, Cam­paign Leg­al Cen­ter Ex­ec­ut­ive Dir­ect­or, said in a state­ment.

But to oth­ers, in­clud­ing ma­jor out­side groups, the de­cision was an­oth­er step for­ward in ad­van­cing polit­ic­al speech. “This is a great day for the First Amend­ment and a great day for polit­ic­al speech,” Club for Growth Pres­id­ent Chris Chocola said in a state­ment.

The rul­ing it­self doesn’t open the floodgates — at is­sue wasn’t the $2,600 lim­it on what a per­son can give to an in­di­vidu­al fed­er­al can­did­ate — but it did chal­lenge the $123,000 cap on an in­di­vidu­al’s over­all con­tri­bu­tions to fed­er­al can­did­ates, parties, and com­mit­tees.

It es­sen­tially picks up where Cit­izens United left off in 2010, a rul­ing that al­lowed in­di­vidu­als and en­tit­ies to fun­nel un­lim­ited amounts of cash through out­side or­gan­iz­a­tions, spawn­ing the now ubi­quit­ous su­per PAC.

In his ma­jor­ity opin­ion, Chief Justice John Roberts sug­ges­ted that the Court’s Cit­izens United de­cision ac­tu­ally helped force its hand in this case:

The ex­ist­ing ag­greg­ate lim­its may in fact en­cour­age the move­ment of money away from en­tit­ies sub­ject to dis­clos­ure. Be­cause in­di­vidu­als’ dir­ect con­tri­bu­tions are lim­ited, would-be donors may turn to oth­er av­en­ues for polit­ic­al speech. See Cit­izens United, supra, at 364. In­di­vidu­als can, for ex­ample, con­trib­ute un­lim­ited amounts to 501(c) or­gan­iz­a­tions, which are not re­quired to pub­licly dis­close their donors. See 26 U. S. C. §6104(d)(3). Such or­gan­iz­a­tions spent some $300 mil­lion on in­de­pend­ent ex­pendit­ures in the 2012 elec­tion cycle.

In his dis­sent, Justice Steph­en Brey­er said the de­cision “evis­cer­ates our Na­tion’s cam­paign fin­ance laws, leav­ing a rem­nant in­cap­able of deal­ing with the grave prob­lems of demo­crat­ic le­git­im­acy that those laws were in­ten­ded to re­solve.”

The rul­ing couldn’t have come at a bet­ter time for politi­cians run­ning in the 2014 midterms: Wealthy donors will no longer be bound in the num­ber of politi­cians and com­mit­tees they can back.

To get a sense of how many donors may take ad­vant­age of the lim­it­less ag­greg­ate con­tri­bu­tions, you can ex­am­ine how many gave the max­im­um amount in the 2012 cycle. Back then, 653 in­di­vidu­als donated the max­im­um amount to the Demo­crat­ic Party, while 1,062 gave the max­im­um amount to the GOP. And 591 donors gave the max­im­um amount to fed­er­al can­did­ates, ac­cord­ing to the Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics.

Joint fun­drais­ing com­mit­tees, or JFCs, could see a ma­jor shift, too. In 2012, 536 donors gave the max­im­um amount to the Obama Vic­tory Fund, while 721 gave the max­im­um amount to the Rom­ney Vic­tory Fund.

Already, law­makers on the Hill are look­ing for ways to in­crease trans­par­ency, giv­en the rul­ing. In­de­pend­ent Sen. An­gus King of Maine has in­tro­duced a bill re­quir­ing that all dona­tions of $1,000 or more be re­por­ted with­in 48 hours. But it’s un­clear how much of a chance any fur­ther re­forms to cam­paign fin­ance have in the cur­rent polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment.

House Speak­er John Boehner lauded the rul­ing, say­ing it means “free­dom of speech is be­ing up­held.”

“Just re­mem­ber, all this goes back to this bizarre Mc­Cain-Fein­gold bill that was passed that has dis­tor­ted the polit­ic­al pro­cess in ways that no one who voted for it ever be­lieved it,” Boehner said Tues­day. “Some of us un­der­stood what was go­ing to hap­pen. It’s push­ing all this money out­side the party struc­ture in­to all these oth­er vari­ous forms.”

But not every­one’s so on board. “There will be scan­dal,” Re­pub­lic­an Sen. John Mc­Cain said after the de­cision. “There’s too much money wash­ing around.”

Matt Berman contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
MANAFORT STEERED HIM WORK IN UKRAINE
Prosecutors Weighing Whether to Charge Greg Craig
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

A long-running federal investigation into former Obama White House counsel Gregory Craig "is reaching a critical stage, presenting the Justice Department with a decision about whether to charge a prominent Democrat as part of a more aggressive crackdown on illegal foreign lobbying." Federal prosecutors in New York have transferred the case to Washington. ... The investigation centers on whether Mr. Craig should have disclosed work he did in 2012 — while he was a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — on behalf of the Russia-aligned government of Viktor F. Yanukovych, then the president of Ukraine. The work was steered to Mr. Craig by Paul Manafort."

Source:
LOWER COURT HAD INVALIDATED LIFE SENTENCE
SCOTUS Will Hear DC Sniper Case
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider Virginia’s plea to reinstate the life-without-parole sentence of a man who as a teenager participated in sniper shootings that terrorized the Washington, D.C., region in 2002. The justices said they will take up the state’s appeal in the case of Lee Boyd Malvo, who was 17 when he and John Allen Muhammad fatally shot 10 people in Maryland, Virginia and Washington. Malvo was sentenced to life-without-parole terms in Virginia and in Maryland, and Muhammad was sentenced to death and was executed in 2009. Malvo was sentenced to four life terms for crimes he committed in Virginia. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled last year that while Malvo’s life-without-parole sentences were legal when they were imposed."

Source:
PROSECUTORS, DOT ARE INVOLVED
U.S. Grand Jury Seeks info on How 737 MAX Is Made
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal prosecutors and Department of Transportation officials are scrutinizing the development of Boeing Co.’s 737 MAX jetliners, according to people familiar with the matter, unusual inquiries that come amid probes of regulators’ safety approvals of the new plane. A grand jury in Washington, D.C., issued a broad subpoena dated March 11 to at least one person involved in the 737 MAX’s development, seeking related documents, including correspondence, emails and other messages."

Source:
HAS NOT ATTENDED HIGH-LEVEL MEETINGS OF LATE
MBS Stripped of Some Powers
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The heir to the Saudi throne has not attended a series of high-profile ministerial and diplomatic meetings in Saudi Arabia over the last fortnight and is alleged to have been stripped of some of his financial and economic authority, the Guardian has been told. The move to restrict, if only temporarily, the responsibilities of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is understood to have been revealed to a group of senior ministers earlier last week by his father, King Salman."

Source:
TURKISH MAN BEING SOUGHT
Mass Shooting in Dutch City of Utrecht
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login