“They basically believe the wealthiest people in the country should have the ability to control and dominate our political system. That may be good for the wealthiest people in the country, but it is an unmitigated disaster for more than 300 million people.’’
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21
“Do I think we will benefit from having one fewer unconstitutional restriction (donors) don’t have to get over? Yes.’’
Ohio Republican Chairman Matt Borges
“Do I think we will benefit from having one fewer unconstitutional restriction (donors) don’t have to get over? Yes.’’
Ohio Republican Chairman Matt Borges
The biggest impact from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign giving may be on what happens next.
Many believe the court’s five conservative justices will succeed in striking down restrictions on how much money people can give to individual candidates.
In its 5-4 ruling on Wednesday, the court invalidated federal restrictions that prohibited anyone from donating more than $123,200 in an election cycle to candidates for the U.S. Senate and House, the national political parties, and federal accounts for state parties.
By doing so, the justices opened the door for wealthy men and women to contribute as much as $3.6 million during an election cycle to federal candidates and political parties as opposed to the old limit of $123,200.
Although Chief Justice Roberts wrote “this case does not involve any challenge’’ to federal law limiting anyone from giving more than $5,200 to a congressional candidate during a two-year cycle, reformers fear those restrictions will eventually be invalidated.
“This is a court that is very skeptical about any type of campaign finance regulation except maybe disclosure,’’ said Donald Tobin, a professor of law at Ohio State University. “It has shown a willingness to move away from’’ past court decisions upholding campaign finance laws “and broaden what is allowed as far as contributions to political campaigns.’’
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington organization that champions tough campaign finance laws, said that Roberts and the four other conservatives “have been on a step-by-step path to destroy the campaign finance laws and there is no way to know far they will go.’’
“They basically believe the wealthiest people in the country should have the ability to control and dominate our political system,’’ Wertheimer said. “That may be good for the wealthiest people in the country, but it is an unmitigated disaster for more than 300 million people.’’
What conservatives say
Conservatives cheered the ruling, saying the court firmly struck down laws that they claim restrict political speech in America. They dismissed fears that a handful of wealthy people will dominate campaigns, with Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, saying “not a lot of people’’ contribute more than $123,200 per election cycle.
“I don’t think this a game changer in the immediate sense,’’ said Bradley Smith, a visiting professor of law from West Virginia University and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
“I don’t think (Roberts) has committed the court or even hinted that he would do away with contribution limits,’’ said Smith, who returns next year to teach law at Capital University in Columbus. “But what he is saying is contribution limits have to be justified’’ by a compelling government interest to prevent specific political corruption.
Conservatives also contended that the decision will revive political parties as donors steer more money to the parties and reduce how much they donate to shadowy independent organizations, some which do not have to disclose the name of their donors. In 2012, those organizations financed millions of dollars of vitriolic TV commercials.
In a conference call with reporters Friday, Portman said some donors “will be more likely to provide contributions to political candidates and political parties rather than outside groups. I think running it through the political parties is a better idea,’’ said Portman.
Matt Borges, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party, said it would make it easier for him “to raise more money’’ from individuals to his party’s federal account. “Do I think we will benefit from having one fewer unconstitutional restriction (donors) don’t have to get over? Yes.’’
The ruling does not mean a donor can suddenly give $100,000 to Portman’s Senate campaign. But it does allow the donor to give $5,200 per election cycle to every U.S. Senate candidate across the country.
Until Thursday, a donor during each cycle could contribute no more than $48,600 to individual candidates and $74,600 to the federal accounts of national or state political parties. That included a $10,000 limit on how much a donor could contribute to the federal account of state parties.
A Republican donor from Alabama and the Republican National Committee challenged the restrictions, contending that law meant he could only contribute the maximum $5,200 to just nine congressional candidates instead of giving money to scores of GOP candidates across the country.
Roberts: Limits ‘intrude’ on rights of free speech
The existing limits date to the Watergate era.
In Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the court ruled the government could limit how much money a donor could contribute to an individual candidate. The GOP officials did not challenge the individual limit, but instead what is called the aggregate total of $123,200 a person can give to all federal candidates and parties.
Although Justice Clarence Thomas wanted to strike down all contribution limits, Roberts concluded that the overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise’’ their right to free speech guaranteed by the Constitution.
Making it even more difficult for any restriction to withstand a challenge, Roberts also ruled that the government’s “interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption – quid pro quo corruption.’’
That last line stung reformers such as Wertheimer, who warned the court is turning U.S. campaigns into “a system of oligarchs where a relatively few number of millionaires and billionaires are given extraordinary influence over elections.’’
About the Author