Get Over It: Campaign Finance Limits Don’t Work

There is no difference between individual campaign contributions and the money individuals give to outside organizations.

A burning barn. 
National Journal
James Oliphant
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
James Oliphant
Oct. 17, 2013, 5 p.m.

Cam­paign fin­ance law is a house gut­ted by fire. After the smoke has cleared, whatever is still stand­ing leaves the homeown­er with a choice: Pre­serve and ren­ov­ate, or de­mol­ish and start anew. And where lim­its on con­tri­bu­tions are con­cerned, it may be time just to knock the damn thing down.

The Su­preme Court hasn’t asked wheth­er any lim­it on cam­paign spend­ing is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, but it’s get­ting there. Last week, the justices took up the latest con­ser­vat­ive salvo: Mc­Cutcheon v. FEC, a case about wheth­er the gov­ern­ment can lim­it the total amount a donor can give to can­did­ates and party com­mit­tees dur­ing a cam­paign cycle. The Court is ex­pec­ted to strike down some or all of the lim­its, likely with a 5-4 vote.

That’s the same tally by which the Court’s right wing pre­vailed three years ago in the now sem­in­al Cit­izens United case, which al­lowed cor­por­a­tions to spend end­lessly to in­flu­ence polit­ic­al cam­paigns and en­cour­aged end­less meta­phors about gates and floods. The con­ser­vat­ives on the Court, led by Ant­on­in Scalia, are mov­ing to­ward a no-holds-barred view of polit­ic­al dona­tions as speech un­equi­voc­ally pro­tec­ted by the First Amend­ment.

And even if they haven’t quite got­ten there yet, where they are today isn’t a great place to be if you are a good-gov­ern­ment type who wor­ries about the gush­ers of cash flow­ing in­to the sys­tem. The Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics has es­tim­ated that $6 bil­lion was spent in the 2012 cycle, nearly $1 bil­lion more than in 2008, which was it­self a re­cord. But if the ques­tions the justices raised dur­ing or­al ar­gu­ments last week in Mc­Cutcheon were any in­dic­a­tion, many re­main in the dark about the role big money is already play­ing.

Mod­ern cam­paign fin­ance jur­is­pru­dence was born of the Court’s 1976 de­cision in Buckley v. Va­leo, in which the justices es­tab­lished an un­wieldy (and in­creas­ingly ri­dicu­lous) dis­tinc­tion between con­tri­bu­tions dir­ectly to a can­did­ate or party and so-called in­de­pend­ent ex­pendit­ures to in­flu­ence cam­paigns, like those flow­ing from the Koch broth­ers’ Amer­ic­ans for Prosper­ity. That de­cision held that lim­its on dir­ect con­tri­bu­tions were ac­cept­able be­cause of fears of cor­rup­tion and bribery, but that lim­its on money spent out­side of cam­paigns were un­con­sti­tu­tion­al im­ped­i­ments to free speech.

Now the snake has swal­lowed the ele­phant. Buckley un­leashed polit­ic­al ac­tion com­mit­tees, which begat su­per PACs and 501(c)(4) groups, which begat the likes of Foster Friess and Shel­don Ad­el­son spon­sor­ing their own can­did­ates last year via dir­ect con­tri­bu­tions to su­per PACs such as Win­ning Our Fu­ture. In the mean­time, Court con­ser­vat­ives have been nudging the law to­ward total de­reg­u­la­tion, and now the in­di­vidu­al and ag­greg­a­tion­al lim­its are about the only things left stand­ing — like the one sol­id beam in the gut­ted house.

Last week, dur­ing ar­gu­ments, the lib­er­al justices wrung their hands over the con­tri­bu­tion lim­its, as if they were the only thing keep­ing the polit­ic­al sys­tem from ru­in — as if the com­mon man still has a voice amid the din of moneyed ti­tans. But Scalia, per­cept­ively, cap­tured the real­ity he has helped bring about: The risk of cor­rup­tion, he ar­gued, is just as present when Ad­el­son or Amer­ic­an Cross­roads spend mil­lions in­dir­ectly as when someone hands a check to a can­did­ate. “If grat­it­ude is cor­rup­tion, don’t those in­de­pend­ent ex­pendit­ures evoke grat­it­ude?” Big money already shapes polit­ics, he said. “You can’t give it to the Re­pub­lic­an Party or the Demo­crat­ic Party, but you can start your own PAC.”¦ I’m not sure that that’s a be­ne­fit to our polit­ic­al sys­tem.”

Give Scalia his due. The sys­tem now really does be­ne­fit out­side groups at the ex­pense of can­did­ates and parties. Oth­er than go­ing back and clamp­ing down on those ex­pendit­ures, which this Court isn’t go­ing to al­low, the only way to re-level the field is to do away with the con­tri­bu­tion lim­its en­tirely. This is, nat­ur­ally, what Scalia wants and what pro­gress­ives, with good reas­on, fear. But that world wouldn’t look much dif­fer­ent than this one — and could ar­gu­ably provide more can­did­ate ac­count­ab­il­ity and great­er funds for time-honored cam­paign func­tions such as voter edu­ca­tion and get-out-the-vote ef­forts.

More im­port­ant, such a rad­ic­al move might fi­nally gal­van­ize Con­gress to bol­ster trans­par­ency, which in the cur­rent eco­sys­tem may be the only true safe­guard against cor­rup­tion. Groups such as the Sun­light Found­a­tion ar­gue that tech­no­logy al­lows track­ing of con­tri­bu­tions and ex­pendit­ures in real time, and ad­voc­ates for de­reg­u­la­tion, such as pro­fess­or Joel Gora of the Brook­lyn Law School, say the In­ter­net gives the pub­lic a more power­ful tool than could have been ima­gined in the days of Buckley to sniff out quid pro quo ar­range­ments. At the same time, law­makers could toughen re­stric­tions on shad­owy 501(c)(4) groups that aren’t re­quired to re­veal their donors, while boost­ing Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion and In­tern­al Rev­en­ue Ser­vice en­force­ment.

Much of that sounds un­real­ist­ic in the cur­rent polit­ic­al en­vir­on­ment, es­pe­cially with con­ser­vat­ives in­creas­ingly view­ing dis­clos­ure as a threat to per­son­al liberty. But today, even with the con­tri­bu­tion lim­its, the sys­tem is riv­en with big money, out­side groups wield­ing out­sized in­flu­ence, and opa­city. The cur­rent Court shows no in­clin­a­tion to al­ter that dy­nam­ic. The Scali­as have already won, and the only re­sponse, if there is one, may be le­gis­lat­ive, not ju­di­cial. Bet­ter to not live in deni­al. That house? It’s gone. Time to re­build.

What We're Following See More »
UNCLEAR IF THIS WILL AFFECT POLLS
Instant Reaction: Clinton Won Debate
7 minutes ago
DEBATE UPDATE

There seems to be a clear consensus forming about Monday's debate: Hillary Clinton was the clear winner. One focus group of undecided Pennsylvania voters, conducted by GOP pollster Frank Luntz, found 16 favored Clinton while five picked Donald Trump. In a Florida focus group organized by CNN, 18 of 20 undecided voters saw Clinton as the winner.

DIDN’T BECAUSE CHELSEA WAS IN THE ROOM
Trump Wanted to Bring Up Bill Clinton
16 minutes ago
DEBATE UPDATE

As both candidates walked off the stage, Donald Trump lauded himself for being restrained and for not bringing up Bill Clinton. "I didn’t want to say—her husband was in the room along with her daughter, who I think is a very nice young lady—and I didn’t want to say what I was going to say about what’s been going on in their life," Trump said. Trump claims he stopped himself from hitting Bill Clinton because daughter Chelsea was in the room.

Source:
REPEATS CONTROVERSIAL CLAIM
Trump: Clinton “Doesn’t Have The Stamina” to be President
11 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE

At the end of the debate, moderator Lester Holt asked Donald Trump if he stands by his statement that Hillary Clinton didn't have the look of a president. Trump responded by saying Holt misquoted him, instead saying that Clinton "doesn't have the stamina." Clinton responded by saying that when Trump visits 112 countries as secretary of state, he can talk to her about stamina.

WIDELY DEBUNKED CLAIM
Trump: Clinton Camp Started Birtherism
11 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE

Donald Trump, when pressed by Lester Holt on why he finally admitted that President Obama was born in America, repeated his widely debunked claim that it was started by Hillary Clinton.

“AFRICAN AMERICANS” ARE “LIVING IN HELL”
Conversation Shifts to Race
12 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE

Hillary Clinton went point by point on how race can so often determine the treatment that people receive, mentioning recent shootings in Tulsa and Charlotte, calling for restored trust between communities and police, and demanding criminal justice reform. Trump responded by calling for law and order and touting his endorsements from police unions. He then said that “African Americans are living in hell,” saying they are just walking down the street and getting “shot ... being decimated by crime."

×