The McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case was decided on Wednesday, April 2. SCOTUS struck down aggregate campaign contribution limits set by federal law which capped the amount of money individuals can give to candidates for office and to political action committees at $123,200.00 for the two-year election cycle.
In favor of McCutcheon, the justices voted 5-4. The justices were split between party lines, with conservatives voting the majority. Chief Justice Roberts announced the decision, claiming that the aggregate limits don’t actually prevent corruption and that the overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities.”
 |
| Image Source: theprogressivecynic.com |
What concerns me the most about this decision, which is consistent with the series of recent SCOTUS rulings (i.e. the 2010 Citizens United case), is that it further decreases the public’s trust in the government. In Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion, he argues that the plurality opinion confines corruption to “quid pro quo” corruption, which narrowly defines it as “a direct exchange of an official act for money.” That definition doesn’t recognize corruption as “garnering ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties’” like it had in a prior case. He further explains that previous cases in history have shown that Congress regulated campaign contributions in order to maintain the integrity of government institutions, which demonstrates a broader interest than what the plurality acknowledged.
 |
| Image Source: paytoplaylawblog.com |
The First Amendment should protect not only the individual’s right to free speech, but the public’s collective speech as well. So, it’s understandable that the appellant felt his First Amendment rights were being restricted by the aggregate limits. I mean, who wouldn’t? It’s your money, you earned it - shouldn’t you be able to support your chosen candidates and shape your future to serve your interests? Why are you limited to just 16 candidates when you'd really like to endorse 28? I get it. However, the Court’s decision did not take into account the public’s interest. Regardless of the legal definition of corruption, money talks. This decision just made it easier for the wealthy to continue to buy elections and harder for the voice of the general public to be heard. This ruling went the wrong direction. Many already feel like their interests and opinions don’t matter - this just means the public’s confidence in our system will erode even further.
No comments:
Post a Comment