Supreme Court threatens campaign finance - again

Oil companies contribute to presidential candidates; backtracking happens on climate change action.

Insurance corporations donate to Congress; Medicare for All isn’t even considered.

The National Rifle Association enriches candidates; the ones who win make sure nothing’s done about guns.

Such influence could get much worse this year.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in “National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. FEC,” a case launched by JD Vance in 2022, when he was running for the Senate. It’s seeking to overturn limits on contributors funneling donations to candidates through political parties, enabling rich contributors to coordinate with campaigns.

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) is far more conservative -- the most conservative bloc in the modern era. And in recent years, it’s shown a willingness to reverse precedents. Ruling in now-Vice President Vance’s case could upend what’s left of federal campaign finance regulations.

The GOP argue that changes in campaign finance limits over recent decades have made remaining restrictions unworkable, if not irrelevant altogether – despite previous courts stating the purpose as preventing corruption or even the appearance of conflicts of interest.

A selective legal time line:

* 1974: The bipartisan Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) passes.

* 1976: The USSC in “Buckley v. Valeo” strikes down a few provisions of FECA, but upholds limits on direct contributions to candidates.

* 2001: In “Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. the Federal Election Commission (FEC),” the USSC rules that that independent expenditures by political parties made without coordination with candidates are protected by the First Amendment,

* 2002 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passes, sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold.

* 2003: The USSC in “McConnell v. FEC” rules 5-4 that most of the (BCRA) is constitutional.

* 2010: In “Citizens United v. FEC,” overruled more of “McConnell v. FEC,” removing limits on independent spending, enabling secret “dark money” contributions and essentially saying corporations are people, and money is speech.

* 2014: The USSC in “McCutcheon v. FEC” struck down restrictions on the total amounts individuals can give to all parties and candidates in one election cycle, but didn’t change limits on how much individuals can give to an individual politician's campaign, which stayed at $2,700 per election.

 

Defenders of the concept of limiting the power of money in politics say the current case is another, perhaps final, step toward complete deregulation, reducing the idea of elected officials acting in the interest of their constituents instead of accepting legalized bribes for wealthy and powerful special interests a quaint notion with no place in 21^st century politics.

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), in a brief supporting the FEC, wrote, that eliminating coordinated spending limits would be “the next step in the march toward allowing unlimited money to swamp American elections and drown out the will of the voters.”

The current Court’s Justices – a 6-3 supermajority – hasn’t hesitates to impose its will.

“This case needs to be looked at in the context of the court’s now-two-decade run of substituting its own judgment for that of voters and Congress on campaign finance,” said Daniel Weiner, a campaign finance law expert for the Brennan Center for Justice.

Attorney Roman Martinez, the court-appointed lawyer defending campaign-finance contribution limits (since the Trump administration is not supporting the FEC), explained to the USSC how each time they change campaign finance law, they set up future cases to kill another limit – even when the Court previously viewed that limit as essential at the time.

“They’re setting up bait-and-switch 2.0,” Martinez said. “Bait-and-switch 1.0 was ‘McCutcheon.’ They came in and said in ‘McCutcheon,’ ‘Hey, we need to get rid of these aggregate limits.’ Why? ‘Because we’ve got all these other protections. Look, coordinated expenditures are limited too.’ And then you said, ‘OK, well fine, we’ll do that,’ and you put it in your opinion that coordinated expenditures were going to protect us. Now they’re coming back and saying, ‘Ha, just kidding, actually the coordinated expenditure provision is unlawful as well’.”

If the USSC ends coordinated spending limits, it will allow donors to circumvent candidate limits like “McCutcheon” did for political party limits.

The Court’s three liberals agreed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court’s rulings on campaign finance typically “make matters worse. Now you want us to tinker some more and try to raise the voice of one party.

“Once we take off coordinated expenditure limits, then what’s left?” she added. “What’s left is nothing,”

A USSC decision is expected later in this term, which this year is October 4.