Unlimited Money in Politics - The Supreme Court Cases that Got Us Here...
Citizens United: the Electorate Must Now Unite in Unison
Elections are won by money, not the best ideas, or the best intellect. It has become what it should not - but instead become what is. This past election exemplifies how how devastating money in politics can be, how money influences elections, and buys public opinion that may not even be true. It’s done through ad campaigns on TV, social media influence, talk shows and more. But remember, just because you heard something you ‘think’ is reliable, doesn’t mean a thing anymore.
Since Buckley v Valeo (1976):
In a little over three years from the revelation of the June 1972 Watergate scandal, the case of Buckley v Valeo was being heard by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) just four years after Watergate. The purpose of the provisions: an attempt by Congress to legislate, to route out corruption in political campaigns, by restricting the amount of financial contributions that could be made to political candidates.
What this legislation did accomplish was provide maximum limits that any individual could contribute to a political campaign. These caps set threshold amounts, and if surpassed, it would trigger inquiry and enforcement action by the newly established Federal Election Commission (FEC).
First Amendment Implications
The journey to challenge these laws began in 1975 in the case of Buckley v Valeo, making its way up to the US Supreme Court. The questions placed before the high court were crafted as strictly a First Amendment issues: Does money equate to speech? And if it does, and speech is curtailed, is there an actionable First Amendment violation? Additionally, another question posed to the high court included, Whether the ‘Freedom of Association Clause’ also part of the First Amendment guarantees, also be violated? That inquiry was based upon whether government can limit who one can associate with - associations taking place by the giving of money “donations” to political campaigns.
Challenges to the First Amendment Free Speech Clause: If money is speech, does placing limits on contributions put a constraint on speech, if in fact money is tantamount to speech…? And would such limits on who can give and receive monetary donations also violate the First Amendment, Freedom of Association Clause - by limiting who one can associate with and give money to?
Specifically the driver of this litigation was based upon electoral expenditures by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), corresponding to provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 - and whether both violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and association clauses.
Because of these confounding issues, the Court decided to hear the aforementioned case of Buckley v Valeo, of which the court rendered two major conclusions:
Upholding that restriction on the amount individuals could contribute to political campaigns and their candidates did not violate the First Amendment because the Court believed the FECA limitations enhanced the “integrity of our systems of representative democracy” - protecting against unethical and unscrupulous practices.
But,
The Court also held that governmental restrictions on “independent expenditures” in campaigns, specifically limitations on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and limits placed on “total” campaign expenditures ‘did’ violate the First Amendment.
The rationale for this finding was based upon the Court’s perception that donors using their own money, is not a recipe for corruption as compared to donations from ‘other’ individuals to candidates. The Court found that the law restricting personal expenditures and the total amount one could spend on a campaign, did not serve a government interest great enough to warrant a curtailment of free speech and association.
The Court’s rational:
As long as the campaign money was coming from the pocket of the candidate - it’s okay. If it’s the candidate’s own money, then the sky is the limit on how much the candidate can spend on the candidate’s own political campaign.
Then came Citizens United…
The Citizens United ruling in 2010, represented a turning point in campaign finance, allowing unlimited campaign spending by corporations and labor unions, and setting the stage for Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010), which authorized the creation of Super PACs, and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which struck down the aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined.
These rulings opened the door to big money Super Pacs that are ‘not comprised of individual donors’ - but groups of donors who have an interest in a candidate, who then pool their monies to get their particular candidate elected. It is often money that is hard to track who it is from, and has led to what is now known as ‘dark money’ - hard to trace money - from groups or even foreign entities that are oftentimes skirting the law, infiltrating and subverting the election process. The only caveat is that a Super Pac not “coordinate” with the candidate - a supposed red line, if they ever get caught.
How it All Relates to Elections Today…
As a result of these rulings, we now have billionaires contributing to campaigns, and in essence ‘buying elections.’ Money in politics has never been greater, where now the world’s richest man has put tilted the scales with moneybags only the richest could buy. They now ‘legally’ buy presidencies, federal and state high offices - all of which should only be won rightfully by donations from individual people and totally on their merits. Despite commonsense, dark money is now devastating the America we knew and loved - it is destroying the nation from within.
Will Dark Money Ever Disappear from the Political Landscape?
Only if there is a groundswell of people who recognize the egregious nature of our elections. To understand and acknowledge it is the billionaire class who control the narrative of what they see and hear on the news, social media, and through their acolytes, and influencers. To understand the billionaires are doing all this to enrich themselves even more - not to help the little guy, those who helped them build their companies, and made their wealth possible.
In Unison Shall we be Heard…
Only when people rise up in unison, with one cogent voice, demand accountability from their ‘leaders’ and reject the billionaire class who are buying elections - only then we may have a chance of winning back democracy, curtailing rogue laws and governmental abuses - to finally institute policies that actually work for the people. Until then, we must be watchful of those we elect, stand vigilant through-out their tenure, and be ready to fight as our nation’s founders’ did - now, to restore the unity, promise and dignity of America - once and for all.
Copyright 2024 - Mary Kay Elloian, MBA, JD, Esq. The Legal Edition® - Legal, Business & Policy News - TheLegalEdition.com All Rights Reserved.