The United States Supreme Court removed another safeguard against the influence of big money in elections. In a 5–4 ruling on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Court overturned caps on the aggregate limits on how much an individual can contribute to candidates and political action committees. Each of us can still only give $2,600 to a candidate, $32,400 to a national political party and $5,000 to a political committee each year. But the Court said yesterday that limiting an individual to $48,600 in candidate contributions and $74,600 in PAC contributions per cycle is a violation of First Amendment rights.
The majority opinion hinges on a very narrow interpretation of the harm money can do in politics. As Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog explains, the majority consider limits on campaign contributions acceptable only when such limits prevent quid pro quo corruption. In Citizens United in 2010, the Court held that money itself and the access it buys are not evil; only when contributions act like a bribe, buying specific actions, does the majority accept limits on campaign cash. The aggregate caps, says the majority, do not prevent quid pro quo corruption.
In its narrow focus on corruption, the Supreme Court misses a whole nother realm under which limits can be upheld: maintaining a balance of power within the framework of democracy. Checks and balances aren't just the three-way tug-of-war set up to keep Congress, the President, or the Supremes from becoming tyrants. Checks and balances exist at all levels, among all participants in the social contract. Capping campaign contributions, per candidate and in aggregation, checks the power of a few thousand of America's richest citizens over millions of voters.
Money gives a small minority of Americans louder and stronger voices than the rest of the electorate. We allow loud and vocal minorities to speak up, and often such squeaky wheels get the grease. But we regularly impose limits on free speech to prevent loud and vocal minorities from drowning out other voices. Consider the South Dakota Legislature: their parliamentary procedure sets time limits on speakers and prohibits individual legislators from speaking twice on an issue until all other legislators have had an opportunity to speak once. Such restrictions on speech are not unconstitutional; they are reasonable checks and balances to promote the equal participation of all citizens in the political process.
The Supreme Court failed to apply checks and balances in McCutcheon. Instead, the Court moved away from the constitutional and democratic principle of allowing citizens to do whatever they want within the respectful bounds of the social contract and toward the ugly libertarian-fronting-for-corporatist principle of letting the rich and powerful do whatever the heck they want.
The right-wing hacks on the Supreme Court are really hellbent on bringing back feudalism.
Gallup poll from Sept/2013 says 30% of pollees believe Scotus is too LIBERAL,23% say too conservative,41% about right,6% no opinion. Every child left behind has rilly dumbed down 'murricans.
It's our own fault and we could change things if we wanted to without any laws at all. All we would have to do is see who generated the most money and who the contributors were and refuse to vote for that candidate. We should vote for the person who refuses to take campaign funds from anyone. The media system should do it's job and keep us informed, but there is too much money in ads. It looks like whoever can buy the most propaganda wins. So what are they talking about? Who is getting the most contributions.
Yeah, that pesky first amendment sure is a pain, isn't it?
Surprising, Al Franken is the one politician I've seen with the correct response: the only solution is a constitutional amendment. He's an incredible leftist, but, he at least recognizes the importance of the Bill of Rights being applied equally, regardless of status.
Since Buckley v. Valeo, the only legitimate governmental interest in restricting contributions is to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. That does not include "maintaining a balance of power within the framework of democracy." Checks and balances are for governments, not citizens. The idea that the government can stop your participation in the political process simply because we've heard your voice enough is antithetical to the First Amendment. It’s not the role of the judiciary to enforce the “social contract.”
The comparison to the Legislature is misplaced. The limitations on speeches there are in the context of a formal meeting of a body of people that have a set amount of time to conduct their business. No such time limits exist for contributions. My contribution does not prevent you from making a contribution; whereas, in the Legislature, you cannot have everyone talking at once.
The Supreme Court can only decide what is or is not constitutional, not what is right or wrong, desirable or repugnant. If the citizenry wants to keep big money quiet, they must do it by changing the constitution, or by making it socially unacceptable for candidates to accept big money.
Eric, your post is spot-on, and I only wish I'd written it myself.
Well shoot, as a normal citizen, all I have to do to get listened to is write a check for a million dollars? I'll get right on that, thanks SCOTUS.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-throws-out-montana-ban-on-corporate-campaign-spending/2012/06/25/gJQAZjUx1V_story.html
The same 5-4 decision makers from Citizens and McCutcheon also ruled that Montana,with their history of korporate korruption,couldn't ban korporations from buying influence. Where are the states rights wingnuts jumping down the activist Scotus throats? Guess the court is activist only when wingnuts disagree with the outcome.
This is the "speech" version of allowing unlimited dumping of trash atop your house.
Constitutional revisions should eliminate the idea that corporations are living breathing children of God. I would think rabid conservatives who wear God on their sleeves would be appalled at the Supreme Court decisions. The next thing from this court would be to give robots the right to vote and freedom of speech, right to assemble, and right to carry a concealed weapon.
Hey folks, the Same Supreme Court that has ruled that money is speech, ruled also that burning the US Flag as protest is speech. Merlyn Shutterlee hit the nail right on the head, and I have already made the resolution to do exactly that. Whoever raises the most money will never get my vote. If all of the 99 percenters would do that, you would see the amount of money in politics come down in a hurry.
I agree with burning the American flag is free speech. It is also the proper way to dispose of "old Glory". Now if we would commence flag burning at the very moment some freakin' maroon pol wrapped his/her worthless hide in the flag,what an expression of speech that would be.
Like bacon fat frying in the morning.
The supreme court only interprets what the constitution says. In a 5 to 4 decision, the majority decides, but that doesn't clearly define it. Does that mean the other justices have no idea what the constitution really says? If so, they should not be on the court. If the constitution was clearly stated, then the decision would be unanimous. Remember, the members read the constitution with a personal bias and a corrupt belief system.