Supreme Court Ruling on Political Money Won’t Cause Upheaval — Yet

Shaun McCutcheon (C) plaintiff in a case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, leaves the Supreme Court on October 8, 2013 in Washington, DC. The court heard oral arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Committee, a first amendment case that will determine how much money an individual can contribute directly to political campaigns. 
National Journal
Elahe Izad
Add to Briefcase
Elahe Izad
Oct. 22, 2013, 6:01 p.m.

A case that’s un­der con­sid­er­a­tion by the Su­preme Court could lay the ground­work for seis­mic-level shifts in the way money in­ter­sects with polit­ics.

Un­der ques­tion is wheth­er the ag­greg­ate cap on the amount an in­di­vidu­al can donate to can­did­ates, parties, and PACs is con­sti­tu­tion­al. Alabama busi­ness­man Shaun Mc­Cutcheon and the Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee brought the suit, in Mc­Cutcheon v. Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion, which was ar­gued be­fore the Court Oct. 8. Mc­Cutcheon’s po­s­i­tion is that the cap vi­ol­ates his First Amend­ment rights.

The case does not chal­lenge the $2,600 lim­it on an in­di­vidu­al con­tri­bu­tion to a fed­er­al can­did­ate. Rather, what is at play is the total that an in­di­vidu­al can con­trib­ute to fed­er­al can­did­ates, parties, and com­mit­tees. The cur­rent cap of $123,200 in­cludes a $48,600 lim­it on con­tri­bu­tions to all can­did­ates and $74,600 to PACs and parties. The ag­greg­ate cap is in­dexed for in­fla­tion in odd-num­ber years.

One way to see how many donors could take ad­vant­age of high­er or no ag­greg­ate caps is by ex­amin­ing how many gave the max­im­um amount in the 2012 cycle. The Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics found that 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.

Des­pite the fact that pro-Rom­ney-lean­ing su­per PACs out­spent pro-Obama ones in 2012, Demo­crats still won the elec­tion. “Any­time you make it easi­er for more big money to come in, we’re go­ing to be at a dis­ad­vant­age,” a na­tion­al Demo­crat­ic con­sult­ant said. “Does that mean the end of the world for us? No.”

Tre­vor Pot­ter, pres­id­ent of the Cam­paign Leg­al Cen­ter, has said “the real threat” is the im­pact the Court’s de­cision could have on joint fun­drais­ing com­mit­tees, or JFCs. In 2012, 536 donors gave the max­im­um amount to the Obama Vic­tory Fund, while 721 gave the max­im­um amount to the Rom­ney Vic­tory Fund.

“Without those lim­its, each polit­ic­al party could so­li­cit con­tri­bu­tions to JFCs of over $1 mil­lion per cycle to fed­er­al and state party com­mit­tees alone, and $3.5 mil­lion if party can­did­ates for the House and Sen­ate are in­cluded in the joint fun­drais­ing ef­fort,” Pot­ter said at a Na­tion­al Press Club event in Oc­to­ber.

Few places al­low un­lim­ited con­tri­bu­tions. Four states per­mit this in their races: Mis­souri, Ore­gon, Utah, and Vir­gin­ia. Mean­while, 39 states lim­it con­tri­bu­tions to can­did­ates from in­di­vidu­als, polit­ic­al parties, PACs, cor­por­a­tions, and uni­ons.

While Cit­izens United opened the door to un­lim­ited money in polit­ics, it forced the funds to be funneled through out­side, in­de­pend­ent groups. It’s against the law for those groups to co­ordin­ate of­fi­cially with cam­paigns. But as it stands now, un­lim­ited money is already in the game in polit­ics. If dona­tions went dir­ectly to parties and can­did­ates, those can­did­ates would have more con­trol over how this money is spent with­in a lar­ger cam­paign strategy.

“The dirty little secret about all this is, money al­ways finds a way to sneak through the cracks,” the Demo­crat­ic con­sult­ant said.

As for the be­ne­fit that donors would get from giv­ing dir­ectly to can­did­ates or cam­paigns, some are skep­tic­al that big donors will back off donat­ing to out­side groups so long as in­di­vidu­al con­tri­bu­tions are still lim­ited.

“Right now, I don’t see the people giv­ing these massive checks … do­ing it for lumps of meat of le­gis­la­tion,” said a GOP con­sult­ant. “It’s be­cause you want to be a big dog.”

Paul Sher­man, a seni­or at­tor­ney with the In­sti­tute for Justice, a liber­tari­an firm, pre­dicted the Court will strike down ag­greg­ate lim­its, but ad­ded that the de­cision’s im­pact will de­pend on how ex­actly the justices do that. He ex­pects that if the ag­greg­ate cap gets lif­ted or ab­ol­ished, it would lay the ground­work for a chal­lenge on in­di­vidu­al fed­er­al con­tri­bu­tions. “And that would be a big change.”

“One pos­sible side ef­fect of rul­ing in fa­vor of the plaintiffs is that it could shift money back to­ward polit­ic­al parties and polit­ic­al can­did­ates, and that in turn could im­prove the tone of the polit­ic­al de­bate,” Sher­man noted.

“Party com­mit­tees will like this more, par­tic­u­larly on the Re­pub­lic­an side,” said the Demo­crat­ic con­sult­ant. “It ac­tu­ally makes out­side groups like [Amer­ic­an] Cross­roads a tiny bit less rel­ev­ant.”

But some in the fun­drais­ing world point out that, at least on the con­gres­sion­al level, play­ing big in the primar­ies is where it counts — and it’s un­clear how large of an ef­fect the Su­preme Court case would have for those situ­ations, where of­fi­cial party com­mit­tees don’t play as ma­jor a role.

In the end, lift­ing the ag­greg­ate cap may just make it easi­er for party com­mit­tees to raise cash they would have got­ten any­way. Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee Chair­man Re­ince Priebus “may have to do an eighth as many chick­en din­ners,” the GOP con­sult­ant said.

What We're Following See More »
STAKES ARE HIGH
Debate Could Sway One-Third of Voters
19 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 34% of registered voters think the three presidential debates would be extremely or quite important in helping them decide whom to support for president. About 11% of voters are considered 'debate persuadables'—that is, they think the debates are important and are either third-party voters or only loosely committed to either major-party candidate."

Source:
YOU DON’T BRING ME FLOWERS ANYMORE
Gennifer Flowers May Not Appear After All
30 minutes ago
THE LATEST

Will he or won't he? That's the question surrounding Donald Trump and his on-again, off-again threats to bring onetime Bill Clinton paramour Gennifer Flowers to the debate as his guest. An assistant to flowers initially said she'd be there, but Trump campaign chief Kellyanne Conway "said on ABC’s 'This Week' that the Trump campaign had not invited Flowers to the debate, but she didn’t rule out the possibility of Flowers being in the audience."

Source:
HAS BEEN OFF OF NEWSCASTS FOR A WEEK
For First Debate, Holt Called on NBC Experts for Prep
42 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

NBC's Lester Holt hasn't hosted the "Nightly News" since Tuesday, as he's prepped for moderating the first presidential debate tonight—and the first of his career. He's called on a host of NBC talent to help him, namely NBC News and MSNBC chairman Andy Lack; NBC News president Deborah Turness; the news division's senior vice president of editorial, Janelle Rodriguez; "Nightly News" producer Sam Singal, "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd, senior political editor Mark Murray and political editor Carrie Dann. But during the debate itself, the only person in Holt's earpiece will be longtime debate producer Marty Slutsky.

Source:
WHITE HOUSE PROMISES VETO
House Votes to Bar Cash Payments to Iran
56 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"The House passed legislation late Thursday that would prohibit the federal government from making any cash payments to Iran, in protest of President Obama's recently discovered decision to pay Iran $1.7 billion in cash in January. And while the White House has said Obama would veto the bill, 16 Democrats joined with Republicans to pass the measure, 254-163."

Source:
NO SURPRISE
Trump Eschewing Briefing Materials in Debate Prep
56 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

In contrast to Hillary Clinton's meticulous debate practice sessions, Donald Trump "is largely shun­ning tra­di­tion­al de­bate pre­par­a­tions, but has been watch­ing video of…Clin­ton’s best and worst de­bate mo­ments, look­ing for her vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies.” Trump “has paid only curs­ory at­ten­tion to brief­ing ma­ter­i­als. He has re­fused to use lecterns in mock de­bate ses­sions des­pite the ur­ging of his ad­visers. He prefers spit­balling ideas with his team rather than hon­ing them in­to crisp, two-minute an­swers.”

Source:
×