- Obama tells DNC fundraising crowd: ‘I’m not overly partisan’
- Chambliss: Downed jet ultimately goes back to Putin
- Perdue strategy: Run against Reid, Obama, Pelosi
- White House: More changes to contraception mandate coming
- ‘Operation Normandy’ set to send 3,500 volunteers to border to ‘stop an invasion’
- Netanyahu’s spokesman: Safe to fly to Israel
- Oregon vandals smear cars with doughnuts, pastries, chocolate bars
- Obama’s ‘Katrina moment’ leaves his favorability factor at 42 percent
- Feds tout nearly 200 arrests, $625K in seized cash in Texas border crackdown
- Joy Behar: Sarah Palin should be ‘turning letters over on some game show’
Supreme Court to hear GOP challenge to campaign finance limits
Question of the Day
In a new test of campaign donors' free-speech rights, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will consider a case challenging the limit on how much individuals are allowed to donate to federal candidates and political parties.
The high court agreed to hear a case brought by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee, who seek to do away with the $123,200 aggregate limit that an individual can donate directly in a two-year election cycle to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees. They argue that the limit violates a donor's right to free speech under the First Amendment and hurts a candidate's ability to compete in a new era of unrestricted campaign spending by independent groups.
Mr. McCutcheon said he accepts that he can give only $2,500 to a single candidate, but he contends he should be able to give that amount to as many GOP candidates as he wants.
Although the case involves the relatively narrow question of the two-year limit on donations, some legal analysts said the court's ruling next year could have broader implications by re-examining the standard it set in the Buckley case in 1976. At the time, the justices said government could impose limits on the "speech" of campaign donations.
"If that rule goes away, that could arguably open the door to do away with contribution limits, as well as the corporate contribution ban and everything else," said Stefan Passantino, a campaign law specialist at McKenna, Long & Aldridge in Washington. "There's the potential here for the court to open up contribution limits wholesale."
The case will be considered in the court's next term, which begins in October.
The move comes three years after the court's Citizens United decision — sharply criticized by President Obama at the time — ended the restrictions on corporate and union donations to independent, third-party groups who want to influence congressional or presidential elections.
Under current law, individuals may give no more than $123,200 for each two-year election cycle directly to candidates or parties. That includes a $2,500 limit for a candidate running for federal office, and $30,800 per year to the national parties' political committees.
Last year, a three-judge federal appeals court in Washington upheld the limits on the grounds that the Supreme Court has consistently said that contributions to candidates can be restricted.
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer said the new case has "enormous consequences for the country."
"If the Supreme Court reverses its past ruling in Buckley, the court would do extraordinary damage to the nation's ability to prevent the corruption of federal officeholders and government decisions," Mr. Wertheimer said. "It would also represent the first time in history that the court declared a federal contribution limit unconstitutional."
Advocates of stricter campaign-finance regulations were disappointed that President Obama didn't mention the subject last week in his State of the Union address. Before he was elected president, Mr. Obama supported tighter regulations on campaign donations, and he chastised the justices to their faces in his 2010 State of the Union speech over the Citizens United ruling.
Since then, the president has not made a push for any new campaign finance law. Instead, last week he created a commission to investigate voting rights issues such as long lines at the polls on Election Day.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Dave Boyer is a White House correspondent for The Washington Times. A native of Allentown, Pa., Boyer worked for the Philadelphia Inquirer from 2002 to 2011 and also has covered Congress for the Times. He is a graduate of Penn State University. Boyer can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Putin calls for cease-fire in Ukraine
- U.S. intelligence nearly certain pro-Russian separatists downed Malaysian Airlines flight
- Latest Obama claim: I don't learn anything from the news
- Obama raises funds while international crises loom
- White House urges border-state governors to pressure Congress on $3.7B immigration bill
Latest Blog Entries
- Obama and Boehner congratulate U.S. men's hockey on win over Russia
- Americans say income gap will shrink if government butts out, poll shows
- WH spokesman Jay Carney recognizes beard's 'insufficiency,' shaves it off
- Obama misses deadline again on budget
- Biden burns rubber in driveway, laments road restrictions
TWT Video Picks
Retailer pays a price for getting too close to Obama
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
- David Perdue defeats Jack Kingston in Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- 'Straight White Guy Festival' supposedly set for Ohio park
- HURT: The cost of 'free' water in Detroit
- EDITORIAL: Obamacare in intensive care
- Pentagon team dispatched to Ukraine amid crisis with Russia
- Contrasting judgments on Obama's health care hours apart; appeals court calls subsidies unlawful
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq