George Will

McCutcheon case tests limits of campaign spending

Updated: 2013-10-09T22:56:34Z

By GEORGE WILL

The Washington Post

The Supreme Court must feel as though it is plowing an ocean as it repeatedly reminds Congress that the anodyne label “campaign finance reform” can encompass a multitude of sins.

This week, the court has another occasion to consider that not all regulations of the indispensable means of disseminating political speech — money — are constitutional just because they are presented as means of preventing corruption or its “appearance.”

By siding with Shaun McCutcheon, a conservative Alabama entrepreneur, the court can continue rescuing the freedoms of political speech and association from abridgements written by, and for, the political class. At issue are the aggregate limits on individuals’ political contributions.

McCutcheon is not attacking the “base limits” that restrict individuals to giving $2,600 per election to any candidate’s campaign. Congress has divined, without apparent reliance on any empirical evidence, that this is the sum above which corruption or its appearance occurs. The sum is, for incumbent lawmakers, conveniently low: It especially burdens candidates challenging incumbents, who have advantages.

McCutcheon is contesting the $48,600 limit on the aggregate amount individuals can contribute to candidates over a two-year span (and aggregate limits on contributions to party committees and PACs). The illogic of aggregate limits is glaring: He could give $2,600 — which Congress considers innocuous — to 18 candidates without an appearance of corruption, but $2,600 to the 19th would somehow trigger the appearance. If in 2006 he had wanted to contribute to one candidate in all 468 federal races (435 House, 33 Senate) he would have been limited to $85.47 per candidate.

Congress, not content with having decided — no one knows how — how much is too much to give to a candidate, has decided how many candidates are too many candidates to support. Incumbents have an incentive to limit challengers’ resources by insisting — without enunciating a standard or principle — that there is “too much” money in politics. Incumbent protection is also served by a similar standardless decree that 19 is “too many” to receive $2,600 contributions that Congress approves.

The government’s brief defending the aggregate limits cites no instance of actual corruption associated with large aggregate contributions. And Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, notes that confidence in government is lower today than in 1974, until which there were no federal limits — base or aggregate — on contributions by individuals to candidates or parties.

The original rationale for aggregate limits was to prevent the circumvention of per-candidate limits by the funneling of large sums to candidates through entities and maneuvers that have subsequently been outlawed. Therefore, no rationale remains for the “aggregate limits” burden on the individual’s rights of political expression and association.

Limits cannot withstand the court’s standard of heightened scrutiny. And two salient facts about all campaign finance regulations should be, individually, sufficient to trigger such scrutiny. All such laws implicate core First Amendment values by limiting the expressive activity of individuals associating with, communicating support for, and enabling the speech of, candidates they support. All laws regulating the competition for elective offices are written by occupants of such offices, people who have a permanent and powerful temptation to shape the political process to favor incumbents.

The court has been permissive — too much so — in allowing incumbent legislators to decree the extent to which an individual can support an individual candidate. There is no remaining reason to permit incumbents to stipulate how many candidates can receive contributions of a size that Congress itself has deemed innocuous. So, deference to that congressional judgment now requires repudiating Congress’ imposition of aggregate limits.

The aggregate limits look like the kind of corruption called self-dealing. It may not be this, but it certainly has this appearance.

To reach Washington Post columnist George Will, send email to georgewill@washpost.com.

Deal Saver Subscribe today!

Comments

The Kansas City Star is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Kansas City Star uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here