SCOTUS/Judiciary
Politico: Donation caps hurt democracy
By Shaun McCutcheonHere’s what happened: As an activist, I naturally want to donate to candidates who share my views. I was doing just that during the 2010 election cycle when an Alabama GOP committee warned I might be nearing my contribution limit. Contribution limit? That was news to me. It turns out that decades ago, Congress put a cap on two kinds of campaign giving: how much you can donate to individual candidates and committees and how much you can give in total when you add all your donations to various candidates and committees, the so-called aggregate limit. Since then, aggregate limits have become too complex and time consuming to understand, both in terms of what they are and what they really do — help incumbents self-regulate and get perpetually reelected.I understand the courts have decided that donating a maximum amount to each candidate or committee won’t cause political corruption. But what makes no sense to me, and what my case is solely about, are the aggregate limits. Somehow, I can give the individual limit, now $2,600, to 17 candidates without corrupting the system. But as soon as I give that same amount to an 18th candidate, our democracy is suddenly at risk. Only politicians in Washington could come up with something so absurd. Think about it: If a $2,600 contribution won’t corrupt 17 candidates, then the same size contribution wouldn’t corrupt 18 … or 28 … or 38.
NY Times: Strike Down All Contribution Limits
By Ilya ShapiroIn the seminal 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that such limits are justified when tied to preventing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof. But the court also decided that restrictions on campaign spending put a heavier burden on political expression, one which the government couldn’t justify. One of the plaintiffs’ arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission is that contribution limits are simultaneously a limit on expenditures — a position that the Cato Institute supports in our amicus brief.We argue that Buckley’s distinction between contributions and expenditures is problematic. Not only does it allow infringements on the freedom of speech, but it has led to an unbalanced and unworkable campaign finance system.
More Soft Money Hard Law: On the Eve of Argument: The Trouble with the Court’s Contributions Jurisprudence
By Bob BauerThe standard is well known—a contribution restriction is a “marginal” infringement of speech and associational rights that will be found constitutional if it is closely drawn to meet a sufficiently important government interest. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1. 20, 25-6 (1976). The central question is when a limit would fail this test. And that answer to that is rarely, and only if the limit as applied is so “dramatic,” “severe” or “radical” that it virtually extinguishes meaningful speech or association. Buckley at 21; Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 397 (2000). The Court has said that a contribution limit raises constitutional concern if it virtually silences the speaker, “driv[ing] the sound of a candidate’s voice below the level of notice.” Nixon at 397. Congressional discretion in setting limits is exceedingly broad, enjoying broad protection from judicial second-guessing.
Reuters: Roberts: The ‘swing’ justice of election law
By Joshua A. DouglasSince Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has issued 23 written opinions involving voting rights, redistricting or campaign finance. Roberts is the only justice who has been in the majority every time. In addition, he has written twice as many majority opinions in this field as any other justice — six, as compared to Kennedy’s three. Roberts has now written more than 25 percent of the election law decisions handed down since he joined the court.He has also likely influenced the language on many others. Seven of the 23 election law cases were decided “per curiam,” or without a publicly-disclosed author because they are “by the court” as a whole. So Roberts may also have had a hand in drafting these opinions.
Politico: Supreme Court set to consider donor limits
By Byron TauMcCutcheon says the case is less about giving Republicans a partisan advantage and more about helping challengers in races against entrenched incumbents. “I think the case can benefit Democrats, independents and Republicans,” he said. “There’s a lot of money in politics, but the challengers have difficulty raising money.”
Huffington Post: McCutcheon v. FEC’s Other Threat: Case Could Super-Size Joint Fundraising Committees
By Paul BlumenthalBacker said, however, that the legal paperwork and reporting requirements to link enough candidate and party committees together into a super joint fundraising committee would be so burdensome as to make this very unlikely.“Anyone who thinks this is out of their mind and a complete idiot,” he said.The Center for Competitive Politics, a group opposed to the aggregate limits, also notes that McCutcheon is not challenging the solicitation ban directly.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Huffington Post: After Citizens United, Campaign Finance Reformers Look For A Bold New Approach
By Paul BlumenthalFive dollars might not seem like enough, not when donors can contribute up to $2,600 for each primary and general election, and politicians typically spend their time asking people to do just that. But this was a small-donor fundraising party — an event Sarbanes plans to repeat across his district as he attempts to fundamentally change the way political candidates raise money.
State and LocalNew Jersey –– North Jersey: Bloomberg buys pro-Booker television ad
By Michael LinhorstThe spot, which will begin airing today, comes as Booker tries to fight off a last-minute surge in the polls by his conservative opponent, Steve Lonegan. There is little more than a week until the Senate special election on Oct. 16.
New York –– NY Post: New York’s campaign-finance limits are illegal
By Terry PellGet ready to see a major New York campaign-finance rule get tossed out by the courts.The state’s limit on PAC donations, even when the PAC is spending independently of a campaign, is plainly unconstitutional.
