October 9, 2013

Supreme Court leans toward looser campaign finance laws

Conservative justices are skeptical about limits on individual donations in a two-year federal cycle.

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to free big individual donors to give more money to political candidates in the court’s first major campaign finance case since the justices took the lid off of independent spending in 2010.

click image to enlarge

Cornell Woolridge of Windsor Mill, Md., protests Tuesday outside the Supreme Court in Washington as the court heard arguments on campaign finance.

The Associated Press

The court’s conservative justices, who formed the majority in 2010’s Citizens United case, voiced varying degrees of skepticism about the limits on what individuals may give candidates, political parties and political action committees in a two-year federal election cycle.

The argument in a packed courtroom that included members of Congress gave supporters of stringent campaign finance regulations little reason for optimism that the court would sustain limits that were enacted 40 years ago in response to Watergate-era abuses. The caps were intended to reduce the potential for political corruption.

Chief Justice John Roberts, possibly the pivotal vote in the case, said that telling an individual he can give the legal maximum of $2,600 per election to only a handful of candidates for Congress “seems to me a very direct restriction” on First Amendment rights.

Roberts seemed less critical of the overall limits as they applied to the political parties, and he said nothing to suggest he would support an outcome that would call into question all contribution limits, including on what one contributor may give one candidate.

The Supreme Court first upheld contribution limits in its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, accepting the anti-corruption rationale. In Citizens United, the court said that spending that is independent of campaigns poses no risk of corruption, no matter how large.

Tuesday’s case was in part about how to reconcile those holdings.

President Obama, who criticized the Citizens United ruling in his State of the Union speech in 2010, said Tuesday the current case has the potential to “go even further than Citizens United” if the court should undermine all contribution limits. “I mean, essentially, it would say anything goes; there are no rules in terms of how to finance campaigns,” Obama said at a news conference he called to address the stalemate over the federal budget.

Republican activist Shaun McCutcheon of Hoover, Ala., the national Republican Party and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky want the court to overturn the overall limits for individuals’ spending – $123,200, including a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates, for 2013 and 2014. McCutcheon and McConnell attended Tuesday’s argument, as did Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who supports the limits.

The limit on individual contributions to any single candidate for Congress in any given election, currently $2,600, is not at issue in the case.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the Obama administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, struggled to persuade conservative justices who are skeptical of campaign finance laws that the overall limits serve as a check on corruption. Without them, Verrilli said, donors could write checks of more than $3.5 million.

Absent limits, “less than 500 people can fund the whole shootin’ match,” Verrilli said.

But Justice Antonin Scalia said that in an era of unlimited independent spending brought on by Citizens United, “I don’t think $3.5 million is a heck of a lot of money.”

Scalia said Verrilli’s fears were overstated. The court already has held that “enormous amounts of money” spent in support of a member of Congress’ re-election is not a problem, he said.

At one point, Justice Elena Kagan, who stood in Verrilli’s place and was on the losing end of the Citizens United case, joked, “I suppose that if this court is having second thoughts about its rulings that independent expenditures are not corrupting, we could change that part of the law.”

Two other members of the Citizens United majority, Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, also questioned Verrilli’s argument. Justice Clarence Thomas has long opposed campaign money limits.

The court’s four liberal justices appeared inclined to uphold the limits at issue.

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors




Further Discussion

Here at OnlineSentinel.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)