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 »
HIS LAWYERS ASKED FOR LENIENCY
Cohen Sentenced to 36 Months in Prison
3 minutes ago
THE LATEST
OWN STAKE IN FIRM THAT WOULD BENEFIT
Ivanka, Jared Conflicted Over Tax Break for Developers?
39 minutes ago
THE DETAILS
HE WAS OBAMA'S HUD SECRETARY
Julian Castro Announces 2020 Exploratory Committee
1 hours ago
THE LATEST
SHE NEEDS HALF OF THE TORIES TO VOTE FOR HER
Theresa May Faces Vote of No Confidence
1 hours ago
THE LATEST
TRUMP TOWER, EMOLUMENTS, AND MORE
New York Attorney General Planning To Investigate Trump Family
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"New York Attorney Gen.-elect Letitia James says she plans to launch sweeping investigations into President Donald Trump, his family and 'anyone' in his circle who may have violated the law once she settles into her new job next month." James plans to investigate Trump's real estate holdings in New York, any government subsidies those businesses may have received, whether Trump has violated the emoluments clause, and "the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting." James also campaigned "on passing a bill to change New York's double jeopardy laws with an eye on possible pardons coming out of the White House."

Source:
×
×

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