Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html

by uptown • 12 years ago

66 82 12 years ago

cobrausn2• 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Supe...

Practically speaking, as long as some needed transparency is in place, is there much of a real difference to how things are currently run?

Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. Was there ever a time where the supreme court was this polarized?

giarc• 12 years ago

I think as the NYT article states, it will likely funnel some money away from the super-PACs. This just brings the donor and the candidate closer together.

People like Sheldon Adelson will still continue to contribute huge sums of money to candidates, he'll just be able to do it directly now.

twoodfin2• 12 years ago

Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. Was there ever a time where the supreme court was this polarized?

I don't think it's particularly polarized. If Antonin Scalia is your benchmark for a "polarizing" figure, the # of 5-4 cases where he was in the majority appear to have been trending downward:

http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisOverview.php?sid=1301-TICTAC-7...

frankchn• 12 years ago

We hear about the 5-4 decisions because they are often the most controversial ones and ones that the media will report on.

Based on last year's statistics (http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/agreement_O...), even between the two Justices who disagree with each other the most (Ginsburg and Alito), they agree on the same judgment in 58% of cases.

cwal37• 12 years ago

It really just means an individual can donate to a lot more individual campaigns now, as the aggregate limit has been struck down. I doubt this will increase any transparency, as current rules are barely enforced to begin with, and the real money is coming from PACs.

I threw this together a couple years ago to demonstrate how a foreign company, if they wished, could donate funds which in the eyes of the law would be "untraceable" (even if it really is obvious).

http://i.imgur.com/Hjp1b.gif

It also just shows how quickly money gets "disguised". I should have put something in there about limits, but I forgot at the time.

smackfu2• 12 years ago

Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me.

I believe this is actually the first 5-4 decision in the current term, which has been going since October: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supre...

There have been a lot of 9-0 decisions, and several 6-3.

cobrausn2• 12 years ago

Good to hear. I must have imprinted that opinion from some scaremongering headlines earlier. Doing a search for 'Supreme Court 5 4' or similar yields a lot of spin.

mason240• 12 years ago

I'm guessing that 5-4 decisions tend to be more polarizing to the public as well, generating more news, while 9-0 decisions The more controversial tend to be more mundane, generating little attention.

briandh2• 12 years ago

The percentage of 5-4 decisions being handed down is practically meaningless without relating it to how controversial or "hard" the questions being decided are. That of course, is fundamentally hard to quantify, although you may make some headway by dividing up decisions based on whether there were circuit splits, how (in)consistent the decisions of lower courts that evaluated the case were, the splits for the lower courts, etc.

Moreover, cases often address multiple questions and a 5-4 decision can be handed down even when many or most of the questions answered were subject unanimous or nearly unanimous agreement. By the same token, a unanimous or near-unanimous decision could have been reached in spite of radically diverging rationales from the various justices.

Shivetya• 12 years ago

Great news. The headline is misleading. Congress again was trying to play games with who could donate to who/what and when they could and so and so on. They were not interested in a level playing field, they were again protecting their interest.

Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents and their party. It in no way protects the right of the people to vote for whom they want. The costs involved in modern campaigns can be insurmountable with the restrictions placed on donations and expenditures. The costs have exceed inflation, the limits have not.

Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to you.

ewillbefull4• 12 years ago

Citizens United and other campaign "finance" rulings are poorly understood by the public still today. Most Americans probably still believe Citizens United had anything to do with contribution limits, or stating "money is speech", or that corporations are people.

A cursory read of the wikipedia article would clear this up, but the media narrative surrounding these rulings will dominate for some time.

ctdonath8• 12 years ago

The ruling ends with

When word concerning the plot of the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington reached the circles of Government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution. ... Under Austin [(the basis for the campaign finance restriction discussed)], though, officials could havedone more than discourage its distribution — they could have banned the film. After all, it, like [the movie] _Hillary_, was speech funded by a corporation that was critical of Members of Congress. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may befiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force. Modern day movies, television comedies, or skits on Youtube.com might portray public officials or public policies in unflattering ways. Yet if a covered transmission during the blackout period creates the background for candidate endorsement or opposition, a felony occurs solely because a corporation, other than an exempt media corporation, has made the “purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value” in order to engage in political speech. ... Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make this political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design.

Some members of the public might consider _Hillary_ to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to beneither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amend-ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression ofideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.”

crazy1van3• 12 years ago

Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same to you.

Great point. The only way to limit contributions from the likes of the NRA but not from groups like the EFF is to focus regulations on the message or messenger itself. That kind of thinking goes completely against free speech. It is also dangerous. Your message may get preferential treatment today, but not necessarily tomorrow.

hga3• 12 years ago

BTW, this decision doesn't touch on PAC contributions, just ones from individuals.

Although it should be pointed out the NRA's contributions are subject to these individual limits, per http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml it looks like $5K per election.

Which is not a lot of money, more of a signal of approval. Which is important, because the IRS is promulgating regulations to enshrine their abuse of "Tea Party" groups, which much like the ones struck down in Citizens United would prevent it from making communications about candidates 60 days before an election (30 before a primary; see http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury,-IRS-Will-Issue-Pro... ).

It's hard to express how dangerous this is....

chez17• 12 years ago

Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents and their party.

This is false.

http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-election-money-2012-...

People who spend more money win. So the rich and powerful can completely override the majority of people. People with no connection to a race can invest large amounts of money to secure a win. In fact, if you look around the world, the only way to make sure incumbents aren't over-protected is to restrict money. Looking at the American system, I don't see how anyone could utter the above line seriously. How has more money not protected incumbents?

ctdonath8• 12 years ago

How has more money not protected incumbents?

Plenty often, when enough people speak up (or contribute to others' costs of speaking up). Of late, numerous anti-gun incumbents are being recalled and replaced for enacting right-transgressing legislation.

CWuestefeld2• 12 years ago

People who spend more money win.

This is intuitive, and almost universally believed. But all actual data I'm aware of doesn't support this.

for example [1]

conventional wisdom, especially among progressives, is that money can buy elections. The Citizens United case was supposed to be the end of democracy since it meant unlimited corporate spending on elections. If money really did buy office, 2012 should have been great evidence for the hypothesis.

Instead 2012 looks like a case study in the powerlessness of money, in the triumph of the autonomous voter. For instance, the Sunlight Foundation reports that 2/3 of outside cash was spent on losers.

[1] http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/money_has_littl....

briandh2• 12 years ago

That is some seriously sloppy "evidence" to be citing.

It makes no reference to any accounting for the popularity of the candidates before and after ad campaigns, the competitiveness of their districts (for House campaigns), incumbent status, and so on.

It also says

Also interesting is that this doesn't even include outside independent spending, like money from Super PACs.

as if to imply outside spending (a) is totally proportional to direct campaign spending and (b) has the same effects, to the same degrees, as direct campaign spending, neither of which is necessarily true.

People who spend more money win.

The shoddy evidence you cited directly contradicts your absolute.

EDIT: toned down wording of the last sentence

grecy2• 12 years ago

* They were not interested in a level playing field, they were again protecting their interest.*

A system where the person with the most money wins is a level playing field?

I'm very happy I'm not playing your silly game.

ewillbefull4• 12 years ago

The most money does not win, the most votes does. Advertisements, books, DVDs... do not translate into votes. They are a part of public discourse that can be as easily celebrated as ignored.

CWuestefeld2• 12 years ago

If the people are too stupid to make wise decisions, and only go where the most funding is, then we may as well throw in the towel on democracy right now; what's the point?

hindsightbias• 12 years ago

We will have the best democracy money can buy

Shinkei3• 12 years ago

I... uh... I don't know how to respond to this. Are you trying to argue a political ideology or do you genuinely believe the argument you've stated? It is provably false as other commenters have shown. So I don't know if you are just misinformed or you are trying to form an argument for a biased position.

In an ideal system, all voters would digest accurate information and make informed decisions, but we know this is not the case. Media has bias and political ads are misleading... plus people don't have the time or impetus to spend vast amounts of time 'sorting the wheat from the chaff.' Many people aren't even skeptics... which is a requisite for being able to filter the signal through that noise.

Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place. Go read about Thomas Jefferson and the history of the estate tax before you try to argue this ideology because it is simply wrong and a danger to democracy.

dragonwriter• 12 years ago

Yes, there is a strong free speech argument for donating money to campaigns, but make no mistake... oligarchs would (maybe already do?) run our country without any restrictions in place.

I think that the one thing that efforts at campaign finance limitations has done is underline that wealth is fungible power, and that restricting the manner in which it is premitted to be applied to politics does very little to limit the influence it has in politics.

ewillbefull4• 12 years ago

If what you're saying is true, democracy is worthless. Decreasing the amplitude of political discourse would have no effect on the ignorance of the general population and their lack of skepticism and poor decision making. It would just create a new game of regulations that rich individuals could play around and avoid to get the result they want anyway.

It is not an uncommon belief that laws like BCRA were designed to entrench incumbents.

"The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers, any speakers, particularly those who might publicly criticize them and their legislation. It is a lot easier to legislate against unions, gun owners, 'fat cat' bankers, health insurance companies and any other industry or 'special interest' group when they can't talk back." Jan Baran, a member of the Commission on Federal Ethics Law Reform

ctdonath8• 12 years ago

A win for freedom of speech, and of the press. Running a press costs money, as does speaking to more than a few people; if a group of people with common interests choose to fund & pool their money to promote a message, they have the right to do so.

Ruling here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Crux of argument:

First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” ... Distinguishing wealthy individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of, e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech.

That and related points go on in detail for 57 pages.

MisterBastahrd2• 12 years ago

Freedom of speech? It essentially turns individual voters without deep pockets into the citizen equivalents of flyover states. All the Supreme Court did was eliminate any pretense that the US isn't quickly turning into an oligarchy.

ctdonath8• 12 years ago

If individual voters are contributing nothing to the speech/press promoting the candidate/cause of their choice, they have nothing to complain about.

Just because some don't exercise their rights doesn't mean they can suppress the rights of those who do.

ewillbefull4• 12 years ago

This is very much a speech issue.

Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations (which happens to include unions and non-profits) from speaking about a candidate 60 days before an election -- in the form of outlawed "electioneering communications". That was the crux of the decision; the law displayed speaker discrimination. It had nothing to do with monetary limits.

After Citizens United it's much easier for individuals without deep pockets to pool their money together to run advertising campaigns or other forms of political speech. Anyone can start a Super PAC and crowd fund for their cause, and they have to do so independently of any related candidate.

Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign ad for them.

protomyth• 12 years ago

"A win for freedom of speech, and of the press."

I'll agree on the speech part since it allows for groupings and patrons of movements to be more effective, but I think the press just lost some of its influence. Given the partisanship in the press, this isn't such a bad thing. They've been pushing their influence for years and can basically spend unlimited money on politics so its fine for "non-press" to be given the same ability.

fourply• 12 years ago

As a law-talking-guy, I can say: this is really, really bad. It's really unusual to see such a split (4-1-4) in such an important decision, and it's tough to say for sure what the law actually is now. One thing that's clear: this doesn't bode well for American democracy UNLESS the legislature takes the clear signal the Court appears to be trying to send and crafts new law to fix the problems this decision creates.

ctdonath8• 12 years ago

The signal the Court appears to be trying to send is "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". It's not a new message, and not new that Congress is inclined to abridge it.

iandanforth• 12 years ago

Money is not speech.

digikata• 12 years ago

Corporations enjoy a legalized fiction as persons, but I don't think their role as citizens has been questioned enough. Non-citizen natural persons aren't allowed to make political donations. Should international corporations who funnel their profits to offshore entities be treated as persons as well as having the speech protections of citizens?

Citizens, by birth or going through the effort of naturalization have a bond to their nation. And so we trust that collectively, the political speech from those citizens serves the long term interests of the nation. Corporations have no such bond, so an essential element that is provided with live citizens is missing.

benihana• 12 years ago

This is the kind of knee jerk panic comment I expect to find in the comments section of NYT, not voted up on HN.

Why is this "really, really bad?" You talk about how bad this is with a bunch of FUD language about how this is a threat to democracy and there are a bunch of problems with this decision but you never actually explain why.

I don't necessarily approach this as the worst thing that has ever happened, and not everyone here does either, so it might help to explain something you seem to assume everyone knows.

jjoonathan• 12 years ago

Campaigns cost money.

Politicians get the lion's share of that money from people expecting an ROI.

Our political system literally has a mandatory bribe quota.

but in the case of company X the lobbying ROI is a net positive for everyone, so the system can't be all bad

Please list the top 10 donors (heck, I'll be generous: any 10 consecutive donors) to any seat-holding political party of your choice, along with your opinion of whether or not the policy they're after is net-beneficial to society (+), zero sum (0), or a net loss to society (-). Alternatively, pick the +/0/- labels according to your unapologetic self-interest, since it's reasonable to vote on that basis rather than trying to work out the whole "net benefit to society" thing.

Let's focus on what lobbying IS instead of hoping (for example) that google will displace comcast from the gravy train.

izendejas• 12 years ago

Anyone that wants to hack this system of corruption, should join Lawrence Lessig (Aaron Swartz)'s cause:

http://www.nhrebellion.org/

snake_plissken2• 12 years ago

This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via campaign contributions has got to end. All of these restrictions were put into place after Watergate for a reason; campaign contributions are a corrupting influence in politics.

ctdonath8• 12 years ago

From the ruling's summary:

the Government’s other arguments [reason] that corporate political speechcan be banned to prevent corruption or its appearance. The Buckley Court found this rationale “sufficiently important” to allow contribution limits but refused to extend that reasoning to expenditure limits, and the Court does not do so here. While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave the question open, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. Later the Court elaborates on the reasoning behind this; I suggest you read it.

snake_plissken2• 12 years ago

I have read it and I do not agree with the court. This is a cherry picked example so I will try to get some more later: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Vesco#Nixon_scandal

crazy1van3• 12 years ago

This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via campaign contributions has got to end.

Should people be limited by how much time they can donate to volunteering for a candidate? How about how many words they can write in favor of a candidate? Why should someone who doesn't have the time to do those things but does have the time to write a check be prohibited from participating in the campaign process?

buerkle2• 12 years ago

However, unlike money, time is limited. No one person can contribute more than 24 hours in a single day.

001sky2• 12 years ago

Please amend the headline# to the actual one:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions

So, at the end of the day individuals can spread their influence "a mile wide and an inch deep". But this does not imply that such individuals can spend in both unlimited depth and breadth. The primary limits (<$3K/per) remain inplace. And the article also notes that this does not impact groups.

Wednesday’s decision concerned only contributions from individuals. Federal law continues to ban contributions by corporations and unions.

Whether this is a good idea or not is debatable. But the editorialized headline doesn't help communicate the actual news.

____________

# HN submitted> "Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions"

uptown• 12 years ago

The headline I originally submitted was the headline used by the NY Times at the time the story was published. I've updated the submission to match the change made by the NY Times per your suggestion.

allochthon• 12 years ago

This is another blow against what remains of a sane US political dialog. The door has been further opened to the cheapening of American political discourse by monied interests, who are able to overwhelm the public with their carefully shaped messaging and attack ads. The current US Supreme Court is doing quite a lot to move the US to a "one-dollar-one-vote" business model.

notdonspaulding• 12 years ago

The current US Supreme Court is doing quite a lot to move the US to a "one-dollar-one-vote" business model.

Can you name one federal government body in the US that takes its job more seriously, or understands its limits and bounds more thoroughly, than the SCOTUS?

Go ahead and try to find one. The SCOTUS is not perfect, it's made mistakes in the past, but please understand that you have a nation of people looking to them to make reasonable applications of law in extremely intricate situations.

Read the SCOTUS transcripts sometime of a polarizing issue and pay particular attention to the questions that the justices who oppose your own viewpoint will raise. They're deliberate, and precise, and unyielding to sensationalism. I think you'll be surprised to find much less judicial agenda than you seem to think SCOTUS is guilty of.

denzil_correa2• 12 years ago

I understand there's a 2600US$ cap on "each gift to a political candidate" and today's ruling doesn't affect this cap. I presume a donor could still give make a very high donation in multiples of 2600US$. Am I right?

hga3• 12 years ago

No, the caps on contributions to each "point source", you might call it, e.g. each candidate, remain the same.

What was overturned was overall spending limits, that you could only donate a total of X dollars per election or whatever.

denzil_correa2• 12 years ago

NPR is reporting otherwise

Overby says that even with the individual candidate limit still in place, the ruling "[makes] it possible for a donor to give a party leader a check for more than $1 million, with the money getting parceled out in $2,600 amounts to the candidates."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/02/298326893/sup...

I'm confused!

ChrisGaudreau• 12 years ago

I must say I was quite worried when I woke up and saw the headlines. They originally made it seem as though the Court struck down all contribution limits, even to individual candidates. Was relieved to learn that wasn't the case. I wonder if we're headed down that road, though.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions

Related Stories