Image: Doug Mills/The New York Times
Today, with a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a a decades-old cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle (see the New York Times coverage here and watch a video from The Monitor here). This ruling is coming four years after the Citizens United case, in which the Court ruled that corporations can independently spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.
Prior to this ruling, campaign finance law prevented individuals from giving more than $2,600 to any one candidate and more than $32,400 to national political committees. Individuals were also barred from spending a total of more than $123,200 on political campaigns per election cycle. The majority of justices agreed that the second provision was unconstitutional.
In an excerpt from the majority opinion (representing himself and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas), Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "We conclude … that the aggregate limits do little, if anything, to address that concern [of circumvention], while seriously restricting participation in the democratic process."
Reactions to this ruling are clearly split. Some think removing the cap will have devastating effects on democracy and allow for the corruption of politicians. Others believe it protects Americans from censorship and allows them to exercise their First Amendment rights fully.
Thinking back on our campaign finance unit, what are your thoughts? Should citizens have the power to spend their money freely, even in matters relating to politics? Do you think any regulations should be put into place, such as a notification whenever an individual donates over a certain amount? Do you think this will prevent under-the-table donations?
8 comments:
The decision on this ruling appears very split along idealogical lines (more conservatives for the ruling and more liberal judges against). This makes the ruling appear partisan. I am not sure if it is partisan, but it does have the impression of politics.
The First Amendment protects freedom of expression. Is spending money free speech? I suppose in a way it is. We have talked in Economics about "voting with your wallet." Scalia, who voted for the majority, is noted for believing in the "original meaning." Do you think that when the First Amendment was written it was intended to protect campaign finances? I doubt it. But the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech, and campaign finances certainly seem like political speech. So I understand that First Amendment perspective.
On the other hand, it does not seem democratic or fair for one individual to be able to profoundly influence elections through donations. Are we a democracy or a plutocracy? Sometimes I wonder.
Interesting post, though, and an interesting issue.
One's reaction to this ruling certainly depends on what one thinks is the definition of a fair democracy. If a fair democracy is defined as one vote per person, then why not let citizens spend as much as they want on political campaigns, if in the end, each person is only allowed one vote? Heck, maybe the interests of the average citizen will even be able to compete with corporate interests, now that both have unlimited aggregate spending caps. An especially interesting point brought up in the NY Times article was the fact that, as a result of this ruling, some contributions may be diverted away from super PACs and toward entities that require disclosure, which would ostensibly make campaign financing a little more transparent. I guess that's a good thing?
But if one prefers Mr. Silton's definition of fair democracy from earlier in the year - in which every citizen has equally proportionate influence over the government - then one might very well be outraged at this ruling. As much a part of political speech as it may be, money definitely grants those with more of it greater influence than those with less of it. And if wealthier citizens are allowed to spend more money than the less-wealthy, they will spend more and thus will exert disproportionately more influence over the government. And with the cost of campaigning on the rise, perhaps government will always be more partial to moneyed interests, regardless of which candidate is elected, because so much of the money spent will be provided by wealthier citizens.
Thank you for your comments, Patrick and Brianne.
Brianne, I agree with reasoning of rights protected by the First Amendment versus plutocracy. I think that a person should have the ability to give his or her own money for a cause that matters. I doubt that anyone would object to a billionaire giving a million dollars to Greenpeace, but when this is applied to a political campaign, it gets iffy. A donation to a political campaign is much more likely to cause speculation about corruption.
Thanks to Patrick for pointing out the two very different definitions of democracy. It would be ideal to have a society where every eligible citizen voted and multi-million-dollar campaigns were unnecessary. Although I’m wondering if the increased transparency is worth allowing those with smaller incomes an even smaller say in government.
"I'm so glad that our government is focusing on how much MORE money we can give to the government and not more pressing issues like our overwhelming debt or our dwindling social security!" she said sarcastically...
Seriously this is the stuff that ticks me off. You want to run for president? Fine. You should either be decent enough or if nothing else manipulative enough to raise your own darn funds. The LAST problem this nation has is politicians not getting enough money. They get too much already. Hey, I just solved the nation economy problem. Stop paying our politicians an arm and a leg for not doing anything, and use that money to pay off debts and fund some of our important dying programs!
Boom. You're welcome.
I mostly agree with the decision to not limit campaign donations. I think it goes back to our fundamental rights and how the government does not have a right to tell us where to spend our money. Personally, I think it would be a good idea to make large donations public so that we know who is financing who and who is influencing who. Although I partly agree with Rachel on how much attention this is getting, I do think that if people choose to spend their money endorsing political campaigns, they should not be limited in doing so.
Patrick brought up and interesting perspective of two different definitions of fair democracy. It's definitely an interesting issue to see how these two differences and their interpretations can create such a rift. Personally, I don't think that that more restrictions on how much individuals and corporations can contribute towards campaign financing is necessarily fair or, arguably more importantly, constitutional. I don't think think it's in accordance with the nation's core beliefs to enact limits on campaign donations. Campaign donations are kind of like investments - individuals and corporations invest their money in a candidate because they support their ideas. And this ties back to Patrick's discussion on fair democracy because, just because one candidate receives more funding, doesn't necessarily mean that when the ballots go out, that candidate is a shoe in. If I remember correctly, during the 2012 Presidential Election, Romney raked in a significant amount more than Obama, yet that didn't mean didly squat come November. Yet, I still agree with Cristina that it's a good and fair idea that large donations be made public so that individuals can be more informed on who is behind the curtain.
However, Rachel did bring up the good point that the time and resources being spend on this issue could be better used on other, more pressing issues than campaign finance.
I believe the whole "Money is speech" argument is full of wholes. Like Patrick mentioned, a true democracy implies that all members of the state have the same proportional influence. But if money is speech, those with more money have a louder voice.
This becomes a critical issue when one views in the scope of the widening wealth divide. Here's great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
It scares me to live in a country were a single plutocrat can influence the policy of our leaders. For example, the leader of the Zionist Organization of America, Sheldon Adelson, is a billionaire and a leading Republican campaign contributor. Recently, presidential hopeful Chris Christie referred to the certain lands in the West Bank as "occupied territories." Adelson took great offense, and Christie FLEW TO LAS VEGAS TO PERSONALLY APOLOGIZE.
No presidential hopeful is ever going to apologize to me for something I found offensive. But more worrisome than that is the weight a single person can pull in this situation. I won't get into the politics of Israel-Palistine, that is not the issue here: the point is, if a Republican presidential nominee ever actually believed that lands in the West Bank are occupied, he or she would never be able to be open about that belief--even if it was what the country wanted or needed. I don't think that's right.
It's a similar situation with Cuba. Many Cuban expats are ardently anti-Castro, and incredibly wealthy. Their money makes them such a powerful lobby that any hope of normalizing our relationship with Cuba will get squashed in the primary, year after year.
You can argue logic all you want. You can argue political theory all you want. But at the end of this day, this ruling injures our country's democracy. Why are we arguing the logical grounds of the ruling, instead of the impact? That seems inhuman to me.
Personal take (feel free to stop reading): I've read quite a bit of Ayn Rand, and her logic seems fool proof in many occasions. But when it comes down to it, people are more important than ideas.
The decision seems politically polarized, but ultimately, I think that it’s the correct decision from a Constitutional perspective. If we rely upon the assumption that money is political speech, then any monetary limit the Supreme Court attempts to define is inarguably an unjustifiable limitation on free speech.
That being said, the real issue here is the fact that money and political capital seem to be directly correlated— by itself, money is a medium of exchange; it’s not the actual “free speech.” And while the founding fathers perhaps did intend to limit government involvement in these sorts of matters, they also feared the “mobocracy” and were more content to leave government decisions in the hands of the elite. Is this kind of behavior conducive to proper American values? I bet you would disagree, so I think the original intent issue here is somewhat moot, seeing as I can’t read the Founding Father’s minds, and none of them foresaw the development of massive corporate interests.
Ultimately, this decision should be correct Constitutionally. Whether it is in alignment with the true interests of fair and competitive elections is a matter of perspective (and thus perhaps that signifies an inherent fairness in the setup), but I don’t think the issue is the court ruling — the issue of “putting one’s money where one’s mouth is” has long been observed in politics. I predict there will be little change.
Post a Comment