What Number Has Done Harm to Our Democratic System: 5 to 4 Seems About Right

This is All it Took in 2010 to Get the Ball Really Rolling)

Chief Justice Roberts WTF Moment for Sure

A condensed and re-edited (only in a few spots to make it fit this blog) the following is from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law (via my email), in part here.

On the sixth anniversary of USSC (5-4) ruling in Citizens United (2010), the political landscape it helped create has become clear: (1) Million-dollar contributions funding Super PACs, (2) Individuals can write $5 million checks directly to candidates and their parties, and (3) the odds that an ordinary citizen can successfully run for office have grown longer and all the handiwork of only five Supreme Court justices  —  and only in the last decade. 

There is nothing about today’s money in politics rules that is permanent or inevitable. It’s worth considering how four widely-deplored elements of today’s campaign finance system came about in such a short time. Only ten years ago, elections weren’t fueled by secret money, and outside groups were restricted in their election spending. 

Then the High Court loosened those restrictions in 2007’s Wisconsin Right to Life, and then eliminated them totally in the Citizens United ruling – ergo: outside spending surged.

Making matters worse, the FEC and the IRS are either unable or unwilling to enforce regulations that would require disclosure of donors by certain outside groups. For all intents and purposes, so long as these “social welfare organizations” and trade associations don’t spend too much money on politics, they need not disclose their donors.

Super PACs, which can raise unlimited money but only spend those funds on activities that are allegedly independent of a candidate’s campaign, have become one of the most powerful vehicles for election spending. But six years ago, they didn’t even exist. That’s because there were limits on how much a donor could give a PAC, no matter how they spent their money.

That all changed with Citizens United, when the Court reasoned that as long as the expenditures are independent of a candidate, there’s no risk of corruption. Only two months later, a lower court followed the Supreme Court’s logic and ruled that there’s no need for contribution limits if a PAC only spends independently of a candidate. Thus, today’s super PAC was born. From 2010 to 2014, super PACs spent more than $1 billion, and more than $600 million of that came from just 195 donors and their spouses. And the failure to enforce the “independence” rule means that super PACs often function effectively as arms of candidates’ campaigns.

The 2014 ruling in McCutcheon was the most recent ruling to stymie longstanding limits on election spending. Before that decision, one person couldn’t give more than $123,000 directly to all candidates and parties combined in a single election cycle. That limit prevented the wealthiest from having outsized influence, and ensured donors could not easily circumvent contribution limits by giving money to parties and candidates who could easily shuffle it between then. The Court struck it down in another 5–4 ruling, and today one person can give $5.1 million. The result of that case and ruling was immediate and striking. 

In the 7 months between that 5-4 ruling (McCutcheon vs. the FEC) and the 2014 midterm election, almost 700 donors exceeded the old limits. That same year in December, Congress exploited the decision by creating a handful of new political party accounts that can collect contributions of $100,000 each. Now both major parties are soliciting million-dollar contributions.

A decade ago, the campaign finance system was far from perfect, but ordinary citizens had a stronger voice, could more easily run for office, and were better informed about the special interests supporting each candidate.

However, the above mentioned of 5–4 USSC decisions beginning in 2007 have gutted that system. Today’s status quo is not the result of some inescapable or long-standing reading of the First Amendment.

The reality is that one vote on the Court is all that stands between the citizesn (the people) and the creation of a system that values average citizens’ voices and election integrity.

The question I have for average Americans is quite simple: What are you prepared to do to help reverse this insanity and really (to coin a fav GOP phrase) “help save our country?” For yes, the entire system is in serious jeopardy and no, I don’t mean the TV game show version, although sometimes the answer is given before seeking the question. (I like that analogy – do you?) (Smile).

Thanks for stopping by.