Published time: September 23, 2013 23:06
The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington DC. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images/AFP)
The US Supreme Court may be poised to strike down one of the few remaining campaign finance laws when it reconvenes next month, potentially lending even greater influence to wealthy donors in the wake of the court’s landmark Citizens United ruling.
Both Republican and Democratic politicians increasingly rely on a
small number of the wealthiest one percent of Americans to fund
their campaign efforts. The funding, according to the nonpartisan
Sunlight Foundation, stems from the “elite class that serves
as the gatekeepers of public office in the United States.”
On October 8, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments
related to whether “aggregate limits” – or restrictions on how
much money a donor can directly provide a candidate for Congress
or party committees during a two-year election season – is in
violation of free speech.
The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), was
brought forth by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been
granted 30 minutes to present an oral argument to the court next
month.
McCutcheon, also a Republican, said he is opposed to the current
cap of $123,200 which donors are permitted to give every two
years to federal candidates, political parties, and political
action committees (PACs).
Current law permits individuals to donate $2,500 per election to
federal candidates, $5,000 per calendar year to any non-party
political committee, and $30,800 per calendar year to a national
party committee. Those limits have not been challenged in the
case by McCutcheon and McConnell.
McCutcheon v. FEC has been portrayed as a sequel to the Supreme
Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. In that
controversial decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that
“independent” spending by corporations, labor unions, and
other associations on election races was protected by free
speech.
Wealthy donors hoping for political influence may now provide
millions of dollars to Super PACs and other organizations that
buy commercial space and work to influence the public. But they
are forbidden from donating more than $48,600 total to all
members of Congress, or more than $74,600 to party committees.
If the conservative-leaning court sides with McCutcheon and
McConnell, financial backers would be allowed to donate nearly
four million dollars to part committees and candidates. The
money, according to David Savage of The Los Angeles Times, would
then be funneled to races the party sees fit.
“It would be terrible for our democracy…if one politician
could directly solicit $3.6 million from a single donor,”
said Lawrence Norden, an election law expert with the Brennan
Center in New York. “That is 70 times the median income for an
American family. It would mean a tiny, tiny group of donors would
wield unprecedented power and influence.”
Pundits widely expect the changes to be put in place because of
the similarities between this case and Citizens United, when five
of the Republican-appointed justices decided to eliminate
spending limits and the four Democratically-appointed dissenting.
“If the Supreme Court reverses its past position and strikes
down the long-standing aggregate contribution limits, it will
open the door wide open to corruption of our federal
officeholders and government decisions,” said Fred
Wertheimer, a supporter of restrictions on campaign funding.
Such a decision is expected to have a partisan impact, as well.
Republican campaign committees have supported McConnell in his
years-long fight to eliminate finance restrictions, while House
Democrats have spoken out against the case. US President Obama
specifically criticized the Citizens United ruling in his 2010
State of the Union address, saying the decision would “open
the floodgates for special interests.”
Some have denied that McCutcheon v. FEC would be advantageous to
one side or the other, while Sunlight Foundation researcher Lee
Drutman told the Times: “The data shows there are more big
donors on the right than on the left.”
Yet Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer for the New Yorker, wrote that
such data could simply be irrelevant.
“Citizens United was not an aberration for this Court,” he
wrote. “It emerged from a definite view about the intersection
of campaigns and free speech. The Justices in the majority are
engaging in a long-term project to deregulate campaigns. A
blessing on unlimited aggregate contributions is the next logical
step for them to take – and they have five votes.”
Copyright: RT