Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits In Law On Overall Campaign Contributions
WASHINGTON (CBS News/CBSDC/AP) — The Supreme Court has struck down limits in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.
The justices said in a 5-4 vote Wednesday that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.
The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, did not call into question the maximum amount an individual can donate to a single candidate or political party in a two-year election cycle — those limits are $2,600 to a candidate, $32,400 to a national political party and $5,000 to a political committee.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court’s liberal and conservative justices. Roberts said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits.
The overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise ‘the most fundamental First Amendment activities,'” Roberts said, quoting from the court’s seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.
“This case represents yet another missed opportunity to right the course of our campaign finance jurisprudence by restoring a standard that is faithful to the First Amendment. Until we undertake that reexamination, we remain in a ‘halfway house’ of our own design,” Thomas wrote.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the liberal dissenters, took the unusual step of reading a summary of his opinion from the bench.
On one level, the McCutcheon case is just about a few thousand of the wealthiest individuals in America, and whether they should be allowed to contribute to as many campaigns and candidates as they want. In this particular case, it’s about Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, and whether he should be allowed to donate $2,600 to just 18 candidates in one election year, or 19 or 20, or more.
“With the ruling, we continue to chip away at the long entrenched status quo from the grassroots – a status quo that has kept challengers, better ideas, and new entrants to the political arena mostly locked out,” McCutcheon said in a statement following the ruling. ” Ensuring that citizens are able to contribute to multiple candidates or causes who share their views only provides further support to a system in which ‘We the People’ hold the ultimate reins of power. I commend the Supreme Court for their decision to defend our freedom.”
Fred Wertheimer, founder of the nonprofit Democracy 21, defended the limits, told CBS News’ Jan Crawford in October that the ability to financially influence effectively every race in the nation goes too far.
“The bottom line is you cannot allow individuals to give, and office holders to solicit, million-dollar and $2 million contributions without corrupting our political system and corrupting our democracy,” he said. “The Supreme Court has never said that contributions represent free speech that cannot be limited.”
Beyond its implications for the wealthy few like McCutcheon, the ruling could mark a significant shift in the way the court treats political gifts. Now that the court has knocked down overall limits, it’s the first chip away at federal contribution limits since the rationale for such limits was established 40 years ago.
“If you fear deregulated politics, you’re concerned about that,” former Federal Election Commission commissioner Brad Smith, co-founder of the Center for Competitive Politics, told reporters before October’s arguments. “If you’re like us and say there’s not much to show for the regulation we’ve had since 1974, then we welcome that development.”
Eliminating aggregate limits may now set the stage for striking down all contribution limits. “At that point, we would be back to the 19th Century and the Robber Baron era,” Wertheimer said, calling the court’s eventual decision in McCutcheon “potentially much more dangerous than the Citizens United decision.”
Reaction to the ruling generally followed party lines, with advocates of capping money in politics aligned with Democrats in opposition to the decision.
The White House says it’s disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision striking down overall campaign contribution limits.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest says the Obama administration is still reviewing the details of Wednesday’s decision. But he’s noting that the solicitor general, which argues the administration’s positions before the court, had defended the constitutionality of the previous limits.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called the Supreme Court decision “an important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust, transparent political discourse.”
The GOP and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had argued that other decisions relaxing campaign finance rules had diminished the influence of political parties.
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said, “This in itself is a small step, but another step on the road to ruination. 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.”
(TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)