Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, February 17, 2019

The Case For Optimism About Campaign Finance Reform – With Scalia On The Bench

The Case For Optimism About Campaign Finance Reform – With Scalia On The Bench

Current limits on money in politics being tested across the country should give reformers hope.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging the century-old ban on direct corporate contributions to federal election campaigns. That counts as good news in a month that included the Court’s earlier decision to hear a case that challenges the aggregate contribution limits in campaign finance and Obama strategist David Axelrod declaring that he would prefer a system of unlimited contributions with full disclosure. Almost all Republicans, the Supreme Court, and a powerful faction of the Democratic Party now fall somewhere on the spectrum between skepticism and vehement opposition to limits on contributions. The flimsy remains of the post-Watergate system of campaign finance regulation are on the verge of collapse.

Richard Hasen, law professor and proprietor of the indispensable Election Law Blog, argued in Slate last week that there was still hope for campaign finance reform – just not until Justice Antonin Scalia leaves the Court. But there are other reforms currently being tested on the ground that hold out hope for changing the power of money in politics.

Hasen is right, of course, that until at least one of the five members of the Citizens United majority leaves the court by death or retirement and is replaced by a Democratic appointee, the best hope is that it will rule narrowly in cases such as the one involving aggregate contribution limits, rather than using them as opportunities, as they did in Citizens United, to punch holes in the law that are bigger than the cases themselves. He’s also right that expecting a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United (or do various other things, depending on the version) is far less likely to reopen the path toward a reasonable balance of the role of money in politics than a change in the membership of the court.

Hasen proposes that campaign finance reform advocates take the time now “to plan for the next Supreme Court.” We should use the indefinite waiting period to “think more about what a reasonable campaign finance regime would look like” and acknowledge that “conservatives are absolutely right that campaign finance laws can boost incumbents and stifle political competition.”

I agree with Hasen on all of that, even the last points, but I’d go even further: A reasonable campaign finance regime, one that doesn’t boost incumbents or stifle competition, could even be put in place with the existing Supreme Court. (The current Congress is another story.) The thinking he’s proposing is going on right now, and is even being tested, in systems based on the principle of “small-donor public financing.” These systems use some combination of matching funds, tax credits, vouchers, or generous public financing for candidates who show a base of small-donor support. They make it easier for candidates to run who don’t have big-donor support in order to enhance public participation and to ensure that elected officials aren’t entirely dependent on big donors or corporations, whether those donors are giving directly to campaigns or to outside groups.

The public financing systems in Arizona, Maine, and Connecticut, which have been resilient, strongly supported by the public, upheld in the courts, and used by almost as many Republicans as Democrats, fall into this category. So does the generous matching system in New York City that has the support of Governor Andrew Cuomo and a growing number of legislators, which can serve as a model for legislation elsewhere. So can Minnesota’s system, which is currently unfunded but which until a few years ago offered a quickly refundable tax credit for small contributions along with a match on the candidate side. All of these systems can be considered part of a broad experiment, and scholars are looking closely at them to see whether they change who runs for office, who donates, and ultimately whether the states’ political processes are more responsive to the public.

Legislation at the federal level has followed the small-donor model as well. Rep. John Sarbanes’ Grassroots Democracy Act, for example, draws on elements from several of the successful state programs, including a refundable tax credit for small donors along with a matching program for campaigns. The Fair Elections Act similarly incorporates a combination of small donor incentives with full public financing. A voucher that would allow every citizen to contribute in the same way that she votes, long advocated by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman who calls them “Patriot Dollars,” and more recently by his Harvard counterpart Lawrence Lessig, is attracting renewed interest as well.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 52

3 responses to “The Case For Optimism About Campaign Finance Reform – With Scalia On The Bench”

  1. charleo1 says:

    And, so it’s another thing! The Supreme Court now, that needs one of the judges a Republican
    President put on the Court, to die, or retire, before democracy can be protected from the scourge
    of unlimited money, dumped into our political system. With the public having absolutely no way to tell where the money came from. I mean Gee Whiz! Are we supposed to clean up their mess on
    Wall Street? Which is still a disgrace. Get the economy going. Put the out of work, back to work.
    Recognize our healthcare system is broken, and reform it. Recognize our immigration system is
    broken, and try to fix it. Recognize our society is becoming, one of very, very, poor, at the bottom,
    and the very, very rich at the top. And, only the Left sees that as a problem? We are going to need a new energy supply before too long. The Right is not concerned. We have to be careful we don’t wreck the environment. The Right says, don’t worry about it. I wonder if we shouldn’t ask them if they need a cold drink. Or, a nap maybe? All that watching the Democrats clean, fix, and reform, while they fight the Left, the Middle Class, and each other, probably has them worn completely out!

  2. Having a man like Scalia in the Supreme Court means a lot more to me than how he rules on campaign finance reform. Judging by his recent statement on “racial entitlement” this man is a bigot who should not be allowed to step in that institution to even clean the floors as a janitor. He represents the worst our society has to offer. Having someone like him in our highest Court is an embarrassment for our country.

  3. nobsartist says:

    I can only hope that some rogue nation has that den of corruption targeted with a missile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.