Supremes Could Decide Sky's the Limit for Campaign Donations
Monday, February 17, 2014
WASHINGTON - Another major Supreme Court decision on campaign finance could come as early as next week. In McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission, Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon said his First Amendment rights are violated when he cannot give a $2,600 donation to as many parties and candidates for federal office as he pleases. Many groups working to get money out of politics hope the high court rules against McCutcheon.
Others, such as Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the libertarian Cato Institute, favor an end to all restrictions on political donations.
Trevor Burrus is a research fellow with the Cato Center for Constitutional Studies. He explained Cato's position on the issue.
"I do not think the danger of protecting the voice of the little guy is something the federal government, or any government, should be involved in. It's not a First Amendment concern that there are people out there who speak louder than other people and have more influence," Burrus said.
He contended that all of the time that politicians must devote to fundraising keeps them from doing their job. Therefore, he would like to see an end to all limits on donations to candidates, parties and political action committees, he said.
Efficient as it might be for a very few donors to fund much larger portions of campaigns, Emma Boorboor, democracy associate, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), said the current overall limit is "plenty" already - in fact, it is almost double the median family income.
"Absent this limit, one wealthy donor would be permitted to contribute more than $3.5 million to a single party's candidates and party committees in one election cycle," Boorboor warned.
Support is building to keep limits in place, she said, from labor, faith, environmental and other groups.
"The more that special interests and corporations are able to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, the harder it's going to be to make progress on the issues that people really care about," Boorboor said.
These groups also would like to see the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United overturned. That ruling said corporations and unions are "people" under the law, and therefore money they spend on elections is a form of protected free speech.
get more stories like this via email
Many of California's 13.5 million children and teens have not bounced back after the pandemic, especially children of color, according to the just-…
Americans continue to report low trust in mainstream media, with many younger than 30 saying they trust information from social media nearly as much …
A Minnesota House committee heard testimony Thursday about the governor's proposed spending plan for education. As these talks unfold, public polling …
Health and Wellness
Health-care professionals say low pay and a worker shortage have led a dramatic number of nursing homes in rural Iowa to close their doors. They hope …
Health and Wellness
Health-care professionals and advocates in Connecticut have said it will take sweeping reforms to bolster the state's flailing public health system…
In her fifth State of the State address this week, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer emphasized policies designed to put more money in Michiganders' pockets…
By nearly every measure, voter fraud in U.S. elections is rare, but that isn't stopping the Texas Legislature from considering dozens of bills this …
A Republican-sponsored bill in the Arkansas Legislature would make it illegal to circulate petitions at or near polling places during elections…