In a 5-4 decision split along party lines, the Supreme Court reached a decision Thursday in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, ruling for relaxed restrictions on campaign donations. The decision reverses a D.C. circuit court decision to keep the aggregate limit restriction on campaign contributions.
The constitutionality of the aggregate limits was confirmed in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) in which the Supreme Court ruled that donations constituted a form of free speech, while simultaneously allowing Congress to limit the number of aggregate individual contributions allowed, barring an individual from donating to more than nine candidates to confront the issue of corruption.
Whereas before, an individual could donate $5,200 to a single candidate for up to nine candidates, amounting to $48,600 total in one election cycle, now individuals may give the maximum amount to as many candidates as they see fit.
The Supreme Court did not broach the subject of removing the base limit for contributions — the amount an individual can spend per candidate in a two-year election cycle.
Opponents to the change argue it will soon devalue the power of votes by opening a floodgate for more money in politics. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “… [The ruling] overturns key precedent; that creates huge loopholes in the law; and that undermines, perhaps devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform.”
Politics Prof. Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics, said the decision further chipped away at the landmark campaign finance regulation bill known as the Federal Election Campaign Act, which founded the Federal Election Commission in the wake of the Watergate scandal, to regulate what Americans then perceived as abuses of the system.
“FECA is all but dead,” Sabato said in an email. “While the Court has not yet struck down individual donation limits, in time the logic they’ve adopted suggests they may do so — barring changes in the Court’s membership.”
Those who stand by the decision echo Chief Justice John Roberts’ remarks about free speech.
“If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign
speech despite popular opposition,” Roberts said in his statement.
Since political parties have cheaper ad-buys and closer cooperation with candidates, Sabato said the ruling may change the institutional importance of political players on the national scene.
“Today’s decision certainly strengthens parties, enabling them to raise tens or hundreds of millions more under the rules,” Sabato said. “That’s the good news. Parties are essential institutions in our system, and this evens the playing field somewhat with SuperPACs and other semi-independent spending committees.”
However, he expressed little optimism this outcome would create big changes.
“[M]aybe the bottomless pit of campaign cash just expands,” Sabato said. “[A]fter all, super-rich SuperPAC financiers prefer the centralized command and control (that is, themselves) of the SuperPAC model.”
Law Prof. Daniel Ortiz said the ruling may increase the number of issue-based PACs.
“[It will] increase the calls upon wealthy donors to donate more,” he said. “They’ll no longer be able [to] politely say ‘no’ by claiming they’ve maxed out under the aggregate limits. It may also lead to the rise of more committees.”
Compared to federal laws, the restrictions are far less stringent in certain states. In Virginia, state laws allow unlimited contributions to candidates from individuals, PACs, corporations and unions.
“Many argue that this allows monied interests undue power and influence over state government,” Ortiz said.
During last year’s Virginia Gubernatorial election, McAuliffe received $100,000 from more than 45 various individuals and private organizations, including $500,000 from tech entrepreneur Sean Parker.
Center for Politics spokesperson Geoffrey Skelley pointed to the 2013 Virginia election cycle, in which Altria Group gave $338,731 to 117 different statewide and General Assembly candidates, as an example of the growth in donations that are bound to ensue on the federal level.
“[T]here’s no reason to think that interest groups, businesses and rich individuals won’t look into maxing out donations to, say, 100 candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives under the new federal campaign finance regime,” Skelley said.
To safeguard against what some believe is an incremental defanging of federal campaign finance regulation, Sabato offered some practical advice.
“Now, almost anything goes in political fundraising and spending,” Sabato said. “All we can try to do now is preserve public disclosure to the maximum extent possible, and make it instantaneous via internet postings.”
Read More
Students have federal internship offers rescinded due to hiring freeze
By Nina Broderick | 17 hours agoUntil July 15, no presently vacant federal civilian positions may be filled, and no new positions may be created.
Man dies from self-inflicted gunshot wounds at the Rotunda
By Ford McCracken | 22 hours agoThe investigation is ongoing, and additional details are not available at this time.
Virginia primary elections feature contested race for Democratic Lt. Gov. candidate
By Nicolas Biernacki | YesterdayEligible voters can find more information about early voting by consulting the City Department of Voter Registration & Elections website or the County Department of Elections website.
