Supreme Court loosens campaign finance limits

Ruling sparks demonstrations and sharp criticism

—————

In a ruling that critics are comparing to the 2010 Citizens United case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that aggregate campaign contribution limits imposed four decades ago violate the First Amendment’s free-speech protections.

In what amounted to a 5-4 decision on April 2, the court ruled in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that while individual donations may still be limited, donors may spread their wealth across as many candidates as they can find.

A wealthy individual could start contributing more than $3.5 million to party committees and candidates over two years. The previous aggregate limit was $123,200 for a two-year election cycle.

The 40-page opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. was joined by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion that called for the end of even other campaign limits.

Aggregate contribution limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities,” Roberts wrote.

The new ruling targets a part of the 1974 campaign finance law enacted after the Watergate political scandal. Limits were placed on how much an individual or committee could give a particular candidate. Aggregate limits were also set, capping the total that a donor might contribute to all candidates and committees.

The Supreme Court upheld much of the 1974 law in the 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo, which separated campaign donations from campaign spending. Spending by a candidate was considered political speech and was granted First Amendment protection. Campaign donations, however, were deemed potentially corrupting and subject to regulation.

Alabama businessman and Republican donor Shaun McCutcheon bought the suit that challenged the limits. The new ruling, however, left intact the legal distinction between contributions and expenditures.

“The government has a strong interest ... in combating corruption and its appearance,” Roberts wrote. “We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.”

The Supreme Court’s four Democratic appointees dissented from the conservative majority’s opinion.

“It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. “It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign.”

The ruling also prompted demonstrations in cities from Tampa, Fla., to Tacoma, Wash. and sharp rebuke by Montana Sens. Jon Tester and John Walsh and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock.

Tester, who introduced a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, said the Supreme Court’s new ruling “allows big money to continue its manipulation of our democracy.”

“In an era where corporations are people and the wealthiest Americans buy elections, today’s decision further empowers a select few at the expense of the American people,” Tester said. “Make no mistake — this decision is a set-back for our freedoms.”

Walsh called the ruling “another consequence of the disastrous Citizens United decision, which set this country on a dangerous path of allowing corporations to buy elections.”

“Montana voters are best served by getting to know their candidates, not by out-of-state, special-interest spending that distorts the issues and records of those running for office,” Walsh said. “I’m outraged by the excessive amount of money in politics, and I will continue to fight to overturn Citizens United so Montana voters can once again decide elections, free from outside influence.”

As Montana Attorney General, Bullock filed suit against the Citizens United ruling by defending Montana’s century-old Corrupt Practices Act. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him in that case.

“It seems as if the Supreme Court is determined to give total license to the wealthy to use their resources to drown out the voices of working families in our elections,” Gov. Bullock said. “It’s disappointing that Court’s majority once again issued a ruling that seeks to turn our elections into auctions. I wish I could say that I’m surprised, but I’m not.”

The recent ruling has its supporters. Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus called the ruling an “important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust, transparent political discourse.”

Americans for Limited Government president Nathan Mehrens also supported the new ruling.

“While the court’s ruling did not strike down the base donation limits, it is a step in the right direction to removing restrictions on campaign donations that strike at the heart of First Amendment protections of political speech,” he said.