- People will be safe at 118th Boston Marathon, Mayor Marty Walsh says
- Boy Scout, 12, killed by rolling tree during troop outing at Washington park
- South Korean president: Ferry crew actions ‘murderous’
- President Obama poised to grant clemency to nonviolent drug offenders: report
- Teen OK after riding in wheel well of Hawaii jet
- Kraft recalls 96K pounds of Oscar Mayer hot dogs over cheese error
- Boy Scouts boots church as host after gay leadership dispute
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s new book raises 2016 presidential speculation
- America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Hillary Clinton won’t be first female president
Supreme Court skeptical of campaign finance cap
Case could let individuals give to more candidates, parties
Supreme Court justices signaled Tuesday that they aren’t sold on current campaign finance laws that limit how much Americans can contribute directly to candidates and political parties, as the court met for the first major oral argument of its new term.
Three years ago the court, in a 5-4 ruling, opened the door to unlimited spending as long as it wasn’t coordinated with a candidate or party, and this new case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, could open the door for individuals to take a more direct role in giving to as many candidates and parties as they want.
The case would not overturn the limit on how much someone could give to a particular candidate or party, but would remove the aggregate limit, which means donors could give the maximum amount to lots of candidates and parties — going well beyond the current total limit of $132,000 per election.
Of the $132,000 limit, just $48,600 can go directly to candidates, while the rest is divided among political parties and political action committees. Republican plaintiffs argued the limit means someone who wants to support candidates to the maximum level can only fund nine of them — something the justices acknowledged was a limit on political free speech rights.
“You’re telling him that he can’t make that contribution, however modest, to a 10th candidate,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Defenders of the law said they are fighting both the reality and appearance of corruption, which can happen if a single individual can give large amounts of money to a single candidate.
They said if the aggregate limit was removed, someone could give to every House and Senate candidate and political party and have all of those siphon the money back to one candidate the donor wanted the money to go to in the first place.
If someone were allowed to give to every political candidate and every political party it could amount to $3.5 million.
“We think the risk of corruption is real,” said Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who defended the existing laws for the Obama administration.
President Obama, who three years ago used his State of the Union speech to personally criticize the Supreme Court for its ruling in the famous Citizens United campaign finance case, again challenged the court Tuesday, pleading with them to uphold limits.
“There aren’t a lot of functioning democracies around the world that work this way, where you can basically have millionaires and billionaires bankrolling whoever they want, however they want, in some cases, undisclosed. What it means is ordinary Americans are shut out of the process,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference Tuesday afternoon, after the oral arguments.
The justices repeatedly grappled with the situation they and Congress have created to allow unlimited spending by independent groups, but to severely restrict raising and spending by candidates and parties.
“I suppose that if this court is having second thoughts about its rulings that independent expenditures are not corrupting, we could change that part of the law,” she said.
Still, it wasn’t just the conservative-leaning members of the court who expressed skepticism about the aggregate limits. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of President Clinton’s nominees, also seemed hard-pressed to see the distinction.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Stephen Dinan can be reached at email@example.com.
- No comment on petition to deport Bieber
- Red-state Democrats blast latest Keystone delay
- 'Deport Bieber' petition draws no comment from White House
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador's visa, but says law is 'advisory'
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- USAID documents cite Hillary Clinton in chaos of Afghan aid
- CURL: Shelly O first lady Michelle Obama comes in last
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- Twitter blocks accounts critical of Turkish government
- Inside China: Marine's comment on islands draws sharp Chinese response
- Building a D.C. memorial for an endless war bumps into regulations
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.