Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
search  
 
Subscribe   Subscribe   MI on Facebook Find us on Twitter Find us on Instagram      
 
 
   
 
     
 

National Law Journal

 

Political Speech Triumphs in McCutcheon Decision

April 02, 2014

By James R. Copland

Chalk up one more win for the First Amendment. In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, decided on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional federal limits on the aggregate amount of money individuals can contribute during a two-year election cycle.

As such, the court—albeit by a divided 5-to-4 majority—took one more step toward getting Congress out of the business of limiting spending on its own elections.

The court remains deeply divided over the regulation of campaign spending and the First Amendment. The Democratic appointees view campaign finance laws as "good government" measures limiting corruption, while the Republican appointees view political speech—which necessarily includes spending money on politics—as perhaps the most central value the First Amendment is designed to protect.

In general, I think the majority has the better argument. No, money is not speech. But no sitting Supreme Court justice rests on that principle, and for good reason. As leading First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh and others have observed, the right to counsel wouldn't mean much if Congress could prevent you from spending your own money on your legal defense, and no supporter of a constitutional right to abortion thinks it would be fine and dandy for Congress to prevent people from paying for an abortion procedure.

To be sure, government corruption is definitely something to worry about—and it always will be. In recent weeks, Charlotte, N.C., mayor Patrick Cannon and California state Senator Leland Yee were separately arrested after federal investigators caught each of them taking bribes in exchange for political favors.

But free elections mean little without free speech—which means money to communicate to the public—and politicians are experts at writing rules that function to entrench themselves. In the post-Watergate campaign law stricken down in part by the Supreme Court in its 1976 campaign-finance decision Buckley v. Valeo, Congress set maximum "campaign expenditure limits" just below the lowest level spent by a successful challenger in the prior election.

The real-world effects of McCutcheon's majority holding will be rather limited. On the margins, parties will be able to raise more money directly from well-heeled individuals. Such individuals will get greater "access" to the politicians they support.

But so do newspaper editorialists, interest groups like the NRA and NAACP, celebrities like Oprah and Jay-Z, those who "bundle" contributors by opening up their Rolodexes, and those who spend money on politics independently as permitted under Citizens United. It's hard to see how the ruling will generate an appreciably greater potential for public corruption.

More broadly, the main reason politicians have to spend so much time on fundraising today is the campaign finance laws themselves. Under existing law, candidates cannot raise funds from a small, wealthy group of donors (unless, like Steve Forbes or Michael Bloomberg, they're wealthy enough to finance their own campaigns)—so they have to spend all their time going hat in hand. In a future case, the court should consider Justice Clarence Thomas's position in McCutcheon, which would reverse Buckley's holding permitting individual-contribution limits. For now, this small step for the First Amendment will do.

Original Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202649496347/Political%20Speech%20Triumphs%20in%20McCutcheon%20Decision

 

 
PRINTER FRIENDLY
 
LATEST FROM OUR SCHOLARS

5 Reasons Janet Yellen Shouldn’t Focus On Income Inequality
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-20-14

Why The Comptroller Race Matters
Nicole Gelinas, 10-20-14

Obama Should Have Picked “Ebola Czar” With Public-Health Experience
Paul Howard, 10-18-14

Success Of Parent Trigger Is Unclear­—Just As Foes Want
Ben Boychuk, 10-18-14

On Obamacare's Second Birthday, Whither The HSA?
Paul Howard, 10-16-14

You Can Repeal Obamacare And Keep Kentucky's Insurance Exchange
Avik Roy, 10-15-14

Are Private Exchanges The Future Of Health Insurance?
Yevgeniy Feyman, 10-15-14

This Nobel Prize-Worthy Economist Figured Out How To Destroy Terrorism
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, 10-15-14

 
 
 

The Manhattan Institute, a 501(c)(3), is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas
that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.

Copyright © 2014 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494