By: Patrick Wheat
In another step toward the elimination of any sort of limits on financial contributions to political campaigns, the Supreme Court announced on Wednesday its decision in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) by ruling that a cap on personal financial contributions toward a political entity is a violation of First Amendment rights. What this means is that any individual may now contribute as many times to as many candidates, political parties or political groups as they wish.
The key objection made by the plaintiff in this case was to a 1970s Watergate-era law restricting donors from giving more than $48,600 to federal candidates and $74,600 to political action committees during a two-year election cycle, for a maximum of $123,200. This objection was filed under the claim that such limits violate the First Amendment’s protection of speech, as money was classified as an expression of free speech under the Citizens United v. FEC ruling in 2010. With the Court’s new ruling, this limit is removed from consideration. However, the ruling leaves in place a cap of $2,600 on individual candidates ($1,300 for the primary campaign and $1,300 for the general campaign respectively).
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that overall limits on the amount of money that an individual may contribute to campaigns “intrude without justification” on First Amendment rights. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Alito, while Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined. This separation of the court was down primarily ideological lines, with the conservative justices all ruling in favor of the plaintiff and the liberals ruling against.
The McCutcheon v. FEC ruling is the latest in a series of recent decisions reducing limitations on political contributions, one example being the Citizens United ruling in 2010. Citizens United removed limits on political spending by Political Action Committees (PACs), which allowed for corporations, wealthy individuals and labor unions to contribute enormous amounts of money in the 2012 presidential campaign: in total, $2 billion was spent by both sides during the election process.
Already, voices on both sides of the political spectrum are giving their opinions on this case. Regarding his support for the verdict, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kan.) said, “Let me be clear for all those who would criticize the decision: It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party – it just respects the Constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support.” Conversely, Justice Breyer wrote in his dissenting opinion “Taken together with [Citizens United], today’s decision eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.” Additionally, Fred Wertheimer, president of campaign finance reform group Democracy 21, said, “This is not about some abstract concept. It’s about re-establishing a system where huge contributions can be given directly to benefit candidates and parties, and it will create opportunities for the corruption of governmental decisions.”
This ruling was based on the precedent established by Citizens United that money is an interpretation of free speech and therefore cannot be impeded by the United States government. However, this precedent has raised substantial concerns over the fact that these two rulings now allow large financial donors to have a very large voice in what actions or positions politicians are likely to take. This is perceived by some to be an example of undue influence over the actions of the government which makes the voices of the wealthy more likely to be heard in the halls of Congress. This ruling, when applied alongside the Citizens United verdict, creates a very real concern that we might be on the precipice of a new age of “creeping corruption” within the government, as more and more politicians begin to focus their energies not on what is best for the people they represent but what best serves the interests that fund their campaigns.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 646 people in the 2012 election cycle hit the maximum overall donation limit, donating a total of $93 million. If this number was the maximum before the limits were removed, than we can expect to see a substantial increase in the amount of money being distributed by the wealthiest “1 percent” of Americans in the upcoming presidential election of 2016. Furthermore, the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts has demonstrated its affinity for striking down campaign finance restrictions of any kind when presented with the opportunity. If this trend holds true, than we can probably expect to see additional cases of this nature presented within the next several years. The Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC represents a new standard for American political participation, and we can safely expect a very large impact on the actions of both campaigns and political parties in both midterm elections in November and the 2016 presidential race.
