- GOP hopes taking shutdown off the table with budget deal will pay dividends
- Chinese Death Star: The moon cited as the perfect launch pad for ballistic missiles
- Help wanted: Homeland Security plagued by vacancies at the top
- We are not amused: Queen’s protection officers warned to keep ‘sticky fingers’ off the royal cashews
- Unleash the crossbows: Gov. Scott Walker creates new hunting season
- Bubonic plague kills 20 in Madagascar
- G-20 diplomats fell for hacker attack promising nude photos of former French first lady Carla Bruni
- Minnesota guardsman charged with stealing private soldier data for fake IDs
- Florida appeals court rules universities can’t regulate guns
- Vladimir Putin defends Russian conservative values
Court reaffirms ban on ‘soft money’ to parties
Five months after the court ruled in favor of unlimited corporate and labor spending in federal elections, the justices on Tuesday turned down a request to consider ending the ban on the raising of “soft money” - unlimited donations from corporations, unions and others - by national party committees.
The soft-money ban was a cornerstone of the 2002 congressional overhaul of federal campaign finance law.
The GOP said the Supreme Court’s rationale in January for removing restrictions on corporate and union spending in federal elections should lead to a similar removal of the restriction on such fundraising by national political parties.
In March, federal judges in Washington said recent campaign finance rulings have left the political parties at a disadvantage relative to outside interest groups now that they are unencumbered by contribution or independent spending limits. But those judges said they lacked authority to overturn the soft-money ban because the Supreme Court explicitly endorsed it in 2003.
The appeal by the Republican National Committee, RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele, the California Republican Party and the San Diego GOP is being handled by attorney Theodore Olson, who successfully urged the court to overturn the ban on independent spending by corporations and unions. When he served as the Bush administration’s top Supreme Court attorney, Mr. Olson once defended the provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that was challenged. That law is named after two leading sponsors of the law, Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Sen. Russ Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat.
Democrats have opposed the Republican effort, even though they, too, would be allowed to collect unlimited contributions.
The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to leave the soft-money ban in place. It drew a distinction between the Citizens United case decided in January, which involved independent spending by corporations, and the current challenge to the prohibition on contributions.
The RNC said it wants to raise and spend soft money to help elect GOP candidates to state offices, finance congressional redistricting efforts after the 2010 census, and fund lobbying efforts on federal legislation.
Before the law was enacted, the two major political parties were raising hundreds of millions of dollars in soft money. Rich individuals, businesses and unions were giving $1 million or more.
When the Supreme Court upheld the soft-money ban in 2003, it said large contributions to the parties were used to buy access to elected officials.
The GOP said the high court’s Citizens United decision in January changed everything. “In Citizens United, the court made clear that the only constitutionally adequate basis for prohibiting political speech is the prevention of actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption - arrangements that exchange dollars for political favors,” the Republicans said in court papers.
Access is not corruption, they said.
About the Author
- NHL returns to the bargaining table
- Putin defends rally crackdown, denies holding political prisoners
- 1 person dead in LA building explosion
- Wildfire explodes in rural hills near Los Angeles
- Two wildfires burn dozens of homes
Latest Blog Entries
By Matt Kibbe
The short-term deal will assure long-term overspending
- Obama's Afghanistan experts stumped on U.S. death toll, war costs during hearing
- NAPOLITANO: A conspiracy so vast
- House pushes through two-year Ryan-Murray budget deal
- Comma on!: Twitter erupts over Obama-Castro 'marriage'
- Jane Fonda Foundation fails to make single contribution in 5 years: report
- All-out war breaks out in GOP over budget pact
- White House improvises again on patchy Obamacare rollout
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
- CARSON: Why did the founders give us the Second Amendment?
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Born in 1930 in rural Missouri, Charles Vandegriffe, Sr., brings his time and place to the Communities.
Columns from Voices around the World talking about the events, people, politics and social issues that concern us wherever, and whoever, we are.
Chef Mary Moran discusses the food we eat, where it comes from and what it does for us.
An informed and often humorous take on the world of advertising, public relations and social media. 100% Pure. Not from concentrate.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow