Few Washington operatives know the ins and outs of election and finance laws as well as the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Trevor Potter. Now at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit he founded, he has continued the fight for campaign finance reform by tracking legal cases related to the issue at all levels of government.
So when Potter, a Republican, claims Citizens United and McCutcheonÂ have created an âopen invitation to corruption, absolutely,â attention must be paid. Especially now that a potentially unprecedented amount of money can be funneled into the upcoming midterm elections without being tracked — despite what the conservative majority of the Supreme Court may argue.
âBy now, youâd really have to be in a coma not to have understood that all this money goes in secretly and is not disclosed, et cetera. So this is really odd,â Potter said of the McCutcheon decision in an interview with The National Memo last Friday.
These untraceable donations by corporations were made possible by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which essentially gave corporations the same First Amendment right to speech in politics as individual citizens. To defend this decision, the majority argued there are protections to ensure that this “speech” (meaning money) is not a corrupting influence in politics, because it is fully disclosed and available to citizens and shareholders.
According to Potter, this defense has been proven incorrect. The idea that a U.S. citizen will be able to discern who is paying for a campaign ad and, in turn, be able to judge whether the ad is affecting the behavior of an elected official is indefensible, he said.
âCorporations by and large do not disclose, at all, their political spending in terms of which nonprofits they give to,” said Potter, “even if those nonprofits are running campaign ads.â
So now, with the recent McCutcheon decision, the boundaries of where these untraceable donations may go are expanded.
The challenge before the Court in McCutcheon v. FEC was to void the federal aggregate contribution limit, first instituted after the Watergate scandal. The contribution limit stated that an individual may not, in the entire election cycle, give more than $123,200 to all federal candidates, party committees and political action committees (PACs) combined.
In effect, the aggregate limit capped major donors from giving money to every candidate, party or PAC they wished. But withÂ McCutcheon, the courtÂ overthrew the aggregate limit in a 5-4 vote.
According to Potter, this decision is unlikely to encourage donors to give to thousands of politically active groups. Instead, he foresees candidates and party committees joining together to cash in on the new law.