The Supreme Court struck down limits on individual campaign donations in a 5-4 decision in the case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. While donors may still only give up to $5,200 to individual candidates in a two year election cycle, there is now no limit on how many candidates a donor can support during a single election cycle, or on the total monetary value of multiple campaign contributions from the same donor.
This ruling will allow for more private money to enter political campaigns and is a continuation of a general judicial trend to loosen financial regulation of political campaigns. For example, in 2010, the Court ruled that the right of corporations, associations, and labor unions to make unrestricted donations to political action committees falls under the First Amendment as an act of free speech in the case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.
Supporters of yesterday’s ruling argue that political campaign donations are a form of free speech and therefore should not be regulated by the government. “[Limits on contributions] instead intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Monetary donations, however, do not fall under the scope of the First Amendment when speech is determined not by the size of one’s voice, but rather, one’s wallet. Even though relatively few private donors can make enough donations to affect elections on a national scale, those that can are now at a distinct advantage over voters who cannot make lavish donations to support their political party.
The $5,200 cap per candidate is barely a consolation prize for those who oppose the ruling because it does not affect the total sum a single private donor can contribute to his or her party of choice. The cap is nothing more than a mask for the blatant corruption of fair elections through extravagant private donations to individual candidates large enough to decide election outcomes. The new ruling means that high-dollar political party donations can be made to joint fundraising committees and then distributed among numerous party candidates and local or state committees.
The Supreme Court rules based on constitutionality, but the Voice doubts the authors of the Constitution could have predicted the influence of the few rich players who have a large hand in electoral politics today. This ruling indicates that the Court accepts the idea that the best representations of the interests of the American people are not the candidates who advocate for the majority, but those who have the financial support of the wealthy. With this decision, free speech has been drowned by cash flow from the wealthiest Americans. The numbers will soon be indistinguishable: the number of votes will count almost as much as the number of zeroes on a campaign check, and that is, in and of itself, a threat to the First Amendment.
“For example, in 2010, the Court ruled that the right of corporations, associations, and labor unions to make unrestricted donations to political action committees falls under the First Amendment as an act of free speech in the case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.”
Huh? I thought Citizens United was about “independent expenditures” to support or oppose a candidate for federal office.
“Monetary donations, however, do not fall under the scope of the First Amendment when speech is determined not by the size of one’s voice, but rather, one’s wallet.”
Huh? Even the dissent would disagree.
“The cap is nothing more than a mask for the blatant corruption of fair elections through extravagant private donations to individual candidates large enough to decide election outcomes.”
That’s probably not the issue–people still have the power to vote–the issue is whether politicians will be more likely to pass things that benefit the narrow interests of the donors.
“The Supreme Court rules based on constitutionality, but the Voice doubts the authors of the Constitution could have predicted the influence of the few rich players who have a large hand in electoral politics today.”
Um, often times, the Supreme Court is called on merely to interpret statutes. And by the by, the reason money in politics matters so much is that government matters so much–perhaps if we had a more limited government, the money issue wouldn’t be as big.