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 »
SANS PROOF
NRA Chief: Leftist Protesters Are Paid
1 days ago
UPDATE
NEW TRAVEL BAN COMING SOON
Trump Still on Campaign Rhetoric
1 days ago
UPDATE
“WE’RE CHANGING IT”
Trump Rails On Obamacare
1 days ago
UPDATE

After spending a few minutes re-litigating the Democratic primary, Donald Trump turned his focus to Obamacare. “I inherited a mess, believe me. We also inherited a failed healthcare law that threatens our medical system with absolute and total catastrophe” he said. “I’ve been watching and nobody says it, but Obamacare doesn’t work.” He finished, "so we're going to repeal and replace Obamacare."

FAKE NEWS
Trump Goes After The Media
1 days ago
UPDATE

Donald Trump lobbed his first attack at the “dishonest media” about a minute into his speech, saying that the media would not appropriately cover the standing ovation that he received. “We are fighting the fake news,” he said, before doubling down on his previous claim that the press is “the enemy of the people." However, he made a distinction, saying that he doesn't think all media is the enemy, just the "fake news."

FBI TURNED DOWN REQUEST
Report: Trump Asked FBI to Deny Russia Stories
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN. But a White House official said late Thursday that the request was only made after the FBI indicated to the White House it did not believe the reporting to be accurate."

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