Skip to main content

See also:

Court ruling on campaign money in politics

Last Wednesday the United States Supreme Court in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC ruled against the aggregate limits in federal election campaign law. The limit on a donor to individual candidates and individual committees was held. It had not been challenged in the case anyway. That is, a single donor's contribution to any one committee or one candidate remains bound by the existing limit, but several committees or candidates may now each receive up to that limit from that donor.
Once again, as has been generally true since the New York Times v. Sullivan decision, the courts are seen to uphold free speech of a general or especially public nature while maintaining a cautious approach to speech specifically directed at other individuals, either to attack them or give them a peculiar benefit by government owing to their contributions to campaigns. Contributions to campaigns are considered protected free speech, and when clearly public will likely always be thoroughly protected by the well known First Amendment to the Constitution.
Campaign expenditures on "speech" or advertising have grown enormous though and have raised concerns, especially when the money comes from wealthy contributors.
Most recently disturbing is the fact that the internet presents the opportunity for candidates to communicate with voters in far greater detail at far less expense, which ought to reduce the need for campaign spending.
Of course with new technology it takes time for people to become comfortable trusting it. Many are still not certain of the correct spelling of "web site," how many separate words, how many capitals, much less which ones ought to influence their votes.
It can nevertheless be much easier now to determine who might legally be on ballots, which web sites represent their ideas best and which web sites have trustworthy criticism.
The amount of time most people spend online is increasing even as compared to watching television or reading print newspapers.
Large campaign contributions therefore raise more suspicion than ever. Might the donor benefit from any legislation passed? How can a law be passed that does not benefit anyone? How is the fairness of any benefit established or clear? Existing law may still restrain not only corruption, but the appearance of it.
Even before the internet, large campaign expenditures seemed to insult the intelligence of voters, suggesting that mere repetition might convince anyone of anything, or that voters were not taking time and effort to learn what candidates have to say, or might do. Annoying as that can be, the courts have not seen any imperative for interference of it from the judicial branch.
The issues in the ruling are not exactly the same as those that yet beset former governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell; however the problems addressed are similar. You will find that no quid pro quo corruption will be tolerated by any parties in these cases.