Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign giving limits
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered another blow to already rickety limits on campaign contributions, ruling that caps on the total amount of money an individual can give to political campaigns, PACs and parties are unconstitutional.
In the 5-4 ruling, the court's Republican-appointed justices joined in overturning the so-called aggregate limits on the grounds that they violated the First Amendment, while the Democratic appointees dissented -- insisting that the caps were constitutional as a means to guard against corruption and circumvention of the still-valid limits on donations to individual campaigns and political committees.
The sweeping ruling has the potential to once again reshape the campaign finance landscape -- bringing more campaign money back under the control of political parties after four years of record spending by outside groups.
(Read the Supreme Court opinion)
It's the latest in a series of federal court rulings -- most notably2010's Citizens United decision -- that are loosening up the rules on campaign contributions. Wednesday's ruling does not, however, strike down the court's landmark holding in 1976Buckley v. Valeo that upheld most contribution limits to individual candidates and committees.
No opinion in the closely-watched McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case won a majority, but five justices voted to strike down the aggregate limits.
Chief Justice John Roberts won the backing of Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito for an opinion finding that the aggregate limits did not help prevent corruption -- the sole rationale the high court has blessed for limits on political donations.
"This Court has identified only one legitimate governmental interest for restricting campaign finances: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption," Roberts wrote. "We have consistently rejected attempts to suppress campaign speech based on other legislative objectives. No matter how desirable it may seem, it is not an acceptable governmental objective to 'level the playing field,' or to 'level electoral opportunities,' or to 'equalize the financial resources of candidates...' The First Amendment prohibits such legislative attempts to 'fine-tune' the electoral process, no matter how well intentioned."
(Also on POLITICO: Boehner hails SCOTUS ruling)
Justice Clarence Thomas did not join the Roberts opinion, but wrote a broader one, arguing that all limits on political contributions are unconstitutional and stating he would have overturned the core holding of Buckley.
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the dissenters, arguing that removing the aggregate caps would allow donors to bundle huge sums and recreate the so-called soft-money era, when it was lawful to make donations of any size to political parties.
The majority on the court found in favor Shaun McCutcheon-- a business owner and conservative activist from Alabama, who challenged the federal cap on the total amount of money he was permitted donate to all federal candidates-- arguing it was an unconstitutional restriction on his freedom of speech.
Prior to Wednesday's ruling, federal law capped the total amount of money that a single donor can give at $48,600 to candidate committees and $74,600 in contributions to PACs and party committees in each two-year cycle. That limit is separate from the $2,600 limit on donations to a single candidate and the $32,400 cap on donations to parties.
It's the biggest campaign finance ruling since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,where the court concluded that corporations, nonprofits and unions were free to make unlimited political expenditures -- so long as they were not coordinated with candidates or campaigns.
That decision had far-reaching implications for the way campaigns and political parties are financed.
(Also on POLITICO: Hobby Lobby case: 9 justices to watch)
An RNC official in February told reporters in January that the lifting of the cap would help bring more money to the party committees -- and was good for the system as a whole.
"Right now, you're choosing between the three committees when you give," the official said, noting that the $48,600 cap keeps donors from giving the maximum -- now set at $32,400 -- to all three party committees.
And, the RNC noted that money to the party committees was fully disclosed
"It's not just more money into the system. It's more money that's transparent, it's more money that's tracked. It actually gets more transparent and actually allows more to go in ways that can be seen," the official said, speaking at a background briefing for reporters.
Since the 2010 Citizens Unitedcase, parties have seen many of their functions outsourced to outside groups, who are able to raise more money from big donors.
Karl Rove's Crossroads network -- consisting of a super PAC and a tax-exempt nonprofit -- spent more than $300 million in the 2012 cycle. That sum spent by Crossroads is more than the Republican National Committee raised and spent during the same time period.
And even President Barack Obama -- who famously blasted the Citizens United ruling in his 2010 State of the Union address with several Supreme Court justices watching -- was boosted by liberal super PACs and nonprofit groups run by his supporters.
McCutcheon could help reverse the trend away from parties by giving them new fundraising tools to help tip the balance away from unlimited spending outside groups.
Because fundraising can be done jointly, the national party committees could -- in theory -- combine forces with other state parties to solicit checks of $1 million or more.
Such a fundraising plan would allow a presidential candidate, speaker of the House, Senate leader or other top official to attend a fundraiser legally soliciting a six or seven figure check.
Prior to McCutcheon, only outside groups -- like Crossroads or the pro-Obama nonprofit Organizing for Action -- could hold fundraisers soliciting that amount of cash. Candidates could appear at those fundraisers for outside groups but were not permitted to explictly ask for cash.
No comments:
Post a Comment