The 2012 elections were the most expensive elections in history, thanks in part to the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which opened the floodgates for unlimited donations to independent groups like Super-PACs that influence elections with flashy campaigns and attack ads.
On Tuesday, the high court will hear oral arguments in a case that campaign finance reformers are calling “the next Citizens United” because the Republican-led legal challenge could erode one of the last protections preventing wealthy donors from influencing elections and seeking political favors from politicians.
Shaun McCutcheon is a wealthy businessman from Alabama. In 2012, he wanted to donate thousands of dollars to Republican candidate committees as well as the Republican National Committee, but federal caps on the total amount of money an individual can donate directly to candidates and party committees in a two-year election cycle prevented him from making those donations.
McCutcheon complained to the RNC, and, arguing that Republicans should be able to take McCutcheon’s campaign cash, the RNC and McCutcheon sued the Federal Elections Commission to challenge its aggregate limits on individual contributions to candidates, party committees and political committees that donate to such groups.
McCutcheon and the RNC are not challenging the limits on individual donations to particular candidates, but rather the limits on the total amount a wealthy individual can give to candidates and committees during an election cycle. Under current law, individuals can give up to an inflation-adjusted $48,600 to individual candidates for federal office and their committees, and up to another $74,600 to national party committees, state committees and political action committees.
McCutcheon hit the federal limit in 2012 with donations to Republican candidates and committees, but claims that he wanted to give more money to a dozen additional GOP candidates and the RNC. The First Amendment, he argues, guarantees his right to spend his own money in whatever way he chooses.
A coalition of progressive groups and campaign finance watchdogs, however, argue that removing caps on the total amount of money that wealthy donors can give directly to candidates and committees would give the rich and powerful even more sway over lawmakers and further erode the integrity of American democracy.
“Our constitution’s authors did not envision a government of corporations and the wealthy – they envisioned a government of the people. This case threatens the very foundations of that system,” said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People For the American Way (PFAW). “A democracy where the voices of everyday Americans are overpowered by the amplified voices of the rich and powerful is not the kind of democracy Americans want or expect.”
If the plaintiffs win, McCutcheon would theoretically be able to donate more than $2.4 million to all Republican candidates, $194,000 the national party, and $1 million to Republican state committees, according to Baker.
If the Supreme Court strikes down aggregate limits, federal and presidential candidates would be able to use joint fundraising committees to raise large sums from individual donors. Two or more candidates or party committees work together to form joint fundraising committees, which have been used for years to solicit contributions from individual donors that are much larger than the amount that donors can give to an individual candidate or committee.
Without aggregate limits, for example, the maximum amount a single donor can give to a presidential candidate becomes $1.2 million when that candidate takes advantage of joint fundraising committees, according to Democracy 21, another campaign finance reform group that supports aggregate limits.
In 2012, donors giving maximum party contributions to the Romney’s joint fundraising committee totaled 721, and 536 maxed out contributions to Obama’s joint fundraising committee.
Unlike the large donors who hid their identities and political motives by donating to shadowy nonprofit groups in the last election, the identities of these donors would be publically disclosed. But disclosure does not provide comfort to supporters of aggregate limits for individual donors. Baker told reporters last week that politicians would know exactly to whom they owe political favors.
In a brief filed with the Supreme Court, Democracy 21, PFAW and other groups argue that the high court has a “compelling reason” to uphold existing aggregate limits to fight political corruption and the public perception of political corruption. The legitimacy of a democracy, they argue, is the belief by voters that they are being fairly represented, regardless of the amount of money they have to throw at politicians.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy