| CNN | - |
Washington
(CNN) -- If you're rich and want to give money to a lot of political
campaigns, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that you can.
me Court allows more private money in election campaigns
updated 12:59 PM EDT, Wed April 2, 2014
Justices strike down donor limit
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Supreme Court lifts limits on how much in total one person can donate
- Its 5-4 ruling means wealthy donors can give to as many campaigns as they want
- People can still only give a maximum of $5,200 to a single candidate
- Critics warn the ruling further undermines already weakened campaign finance laws
The 5-4 ruling eliminated limits on much money people can donate in total in one election season.
However, the decision
left intact the current $5,200 limit on how much an individual can give
to any single candidate during a two-year election cycle. Until now, an
individual donor could give up to $123,200 per cycle.
The ruling means a
wealthy liberal or conservative donor can give as much money as desired
to federal election candidates across the country, as long as no
candidate receives more than the $5,200 cap.
While most people lack
the money to make such a large total donation to election campaigns, the
ruling clears the way for more private money to enter the system.
In effect, it expands the
loosening of campaign finance laws that occurred with the high court's
Citizens United decision in 2010 that eased campaign spending by outside
groups.
At issue was whether
limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act on overall -- or aggregate
-- campaign spending by individuals violate the First Amendment rights
of contributors.
"We conclude that the
aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental
interest this court accepted as legitimate" in a 1976 ruling, said Chief
Justice John Roberts, who wrote the opinion of the court's conservative
majority. "They instead intrude without justification on a citizen's
ability to express the most fundamental First Amendment activities."
In dissent, Justice
Stephen Breyer said the majority opinion will have the effect of
creating "huge loopholes in the law; and that undermines, perhaps
devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform."
Republican leaders hailed the decision as an affirmation of free expression rights.
"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," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
However, congressional
supporters of tougher campaign finance laws expressed concern about more
private money influencing elections.
"I am concerned that
today's ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by a majority
of the court to dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of
campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special
interests on American politics," said Republican Sen. John McCain of
Arizona, a longtime proponent of campaign finance reform.
House Democratic leader
Nancy Pelosi of California said the decision "only serves to widen the
floodgates of special interest spending, eroding the sacred American
doctrine that it is the voices of the people, not the bank accounts of
the privileged few that should determine our elections and our
policies."
Pelosi and some other
legislators called for new campaign finance legislation in response to
the ruling, but such reforms appeared impossible in an election year.
Sen. Pat Leahy of
Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said
he would hold a hearing on the impact of "alarming Supreme Court
decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws."
Another top Senate
Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, warned of further erosion of
limits on special interest influence in elections.
"This in itself is a
small step, but another step on the road to ruination," Schumer said.
"It could lead to interpretations of the law that would result in the
end of any fairness in the political system as we know it."
The case involved Shaun
McCutcheon, the owner of an Alabama electrical engineering company, with
support from the Republican National Committee.
They objected to a 1970s
Watergate-era law restricting someone from giving no 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.
McCutcheon argued he had
a constitutional right to donate more than that amount to as many
office seekers as he wanted, as long as no single candidate got more
than the $5,200 per election limit ($2,600 for a primary election and
another $2,600 for a general election).
Supporters of the
existing regulations said the law prevented corruption or the appearance
of corruption. Without the limits, they argued, one well-heeled donor
could in theory contribute to every federal race possible.
The ruling leaves in
place current donor limits to individual candidates, and donor
disclosure requirements by candidates, political parties, and political
action committees.
"What I think this means
is that freedom of speech is being upheld," said House Speaker John
Boehner, an Ohio Republican. "You all have the freedom to write what you
want to write donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want
to give."
But supporters of the limits expressed disappointment.
"The Supreme Court
majority continued on its march to destroy the nation's campaign finance
laws, which were enacted to prevent corruption and protect the
integrity of our democracy," said Democracy 21 president Fred
Wertheimer, a longtime advocate for election money reforms. "The court
re-created the system of legalized bribery today that existed during the
Watergate days."
Congress passed the individual aggregate limits in the wake of the Watergate scandal, and the Supreme Court upheld them in 1976.
The separate Citizens United case in 2010 dealt with campaign spending by outside groups seeking to influence federal elections.
In that case, the
conservative majority -- citing free speech concerns -- eased
longstanding restrictions on campaign spending by corporations, labor
unions, and certain non-profit advocacy groups.
The Citizens United
ruling helped open the floodgates to massive corporate spending in the
2012 elections. It also led to further litigation seeking to loosen
current restrictions on both spending and donations.
CNN Senior Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report
From Around the Web
-
Why you no longer need a human financial advisor PC Magazine
-
7 Credit Cards You Should Not Ignore If You Have Excellent Credit NextAdvisor Daily
-
Homeowners Are In For A Big Surprise Lifestyle Journal
-
Homeowners May Be In for a Rude Awakening... Smart Life Weekly
-
Rent vs Buy: The Analysis Will Surprise You SmartAsset
More from CNN
-
end quote from:
Supreme Court allows more private money in election campaigns
This might be good for corporations but it is not good for the electorate. It just means that big money will rule elections even more than it does now. It also means now more than ever that unless you are very intelligent you are going to be lied to by big companies and donors more and more as time goes on. So, ferreting out the truth also might be more and more difficult for the average person which doesn't help making our government more efficient and workable and useful. Instead it will become less efficient and less accountable to the electorate instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment