Bringing Big Money Out of the Shadows
By NATHANIEL PERSILY, NYT, APRIL 2, 2014
Once again, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court has knocked down a campaign finance limit, and, once again, court watchers have gone ballistic. Yet for those who worry about the polarizing effect of money on politics, the McCutcheon decision gives us a little hope. A world in which individuals can give limited, disclosed amounts of money to an unlimited number of politicians is preferable to one in which large chunks are given only to “super PACs” and other unaccountable outside groups.
First, a little history. In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court made it clear that individuals have an unfettered First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want advocating for their own election or for the election of their preferred candidate. However, the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on one’s own did not extend to a right to contribute unlimited sums to candidates and parties. Since Buckley, you have been able to spend as much money as you want on TV ads saying “vote for me” or “vote for Smith,” but you could only give limited amounts to the “Smith for Congress” campaign.
The court’s much-maligned opinion in Citizens United reinforced and expanded the logic of the long line of cases that established this basic contribution-expenditure distinction. First, overturning contrary decisions, it said corporations were just like people in that the First Amendment protects their right to spend unlimited independent amounts of money advocating for the election or defeat of candidates. Second, it asserted that corruption is a narrow concept extending only to the rare phenomenon when a politician does an official favor in exchange for the contribution (so-called “quid pro quo” corruption). The influence and access rich individuals and corporations enjoy because of their expenditures was not enough to justify campaign finance restrictions. Rather, you now needed to show that money was buying votes or other political favors.
(More here.)
Once again, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court has knocked down a campaign finance limit, and, once again, court watchers have gone ballistic. Yet for those who worry about the polarizing effect of money on politics, the McCutcheon decision gives us a little hope. A world in which individuals can give limited, disclosed amounts of money to an unlimited number of politicians is preferable to one in which large chunks are given only to “super PACs” and other unaccountable outside groups.
First, a little history. In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court made it clear that individuals have an unfettered First Amendment right to spend as much money as they want advocating for their own election or for the election of their preferred candidate. However, the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on one’s own did not extend to a right to contribute unlimited sums to candidates and parties. Since Buckley, you have been able to spend as much money as you want on TV ads saying “vote for me” or “vote for Smith,” but you could only give limited amounts to the “Smith for Congress” campaign.
The court’s much-maligned opinion in Citizens United reinforced and expanded the logic of the long line of cases that established this basic contribution-expenditure distinction. First, overturning contrary decisions, it said corporations were just like people in that the First Amendment protects their right to spend unlimited independent amounts of money advocating for the election or defeat of candidates. Second, it asserted that corruption is a narrow concept extending only to the rare phenomenon when a politician does an official favor in exchange for the contribution (so-called “quid pro quo” corruption). The influence and access rich individuals and corporations enjoy because of their expenditures was not enough to justify campaign finance restrictions. Rather, you now needed to show that money was buying votes or other political favors.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home