The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019

What Next For Campaign Finance?

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 yesterday to overturn an Arizona state law that provided matching funds to publicly-financed candidates who are outspent by privately financed opponents.. The intent of the law was clear: to level the playing field, so that rich candidates and their wealthy backers couldn’t simply buy elections. And, for Chief Justice Roberts, the freedom to massively outspend their opponents, which Roberts believes is a form of free speech, seems more important than making sure elections are fair.

He argued that when it comes to political speech, “the guiding principle is freedom— the “unfettered interchange of ideas”—not whatever the State may view as fair.” Justice Kagan, in a forceful dissent, argued first that the Arizona law does not limit free speech, but to the contrary, the law exists to “fund more speech.”

So where does this leave other campaign finance laws? The good news, says U.C.-Irvine Law professor Richard Hasen, is that it wasn’t a “death blow.” The five conservatives on the Court only objected to the matching-funds-of-rich-opponents provision of the law.

For now, there are other ways of raising money. New York City, for example, uses a system that provides candidates with six times whatever they manage to raise from small donors. This encourages candidates to raise money from many small donors than a few large ones. But that may not last for long — Hasen points out that the program could be seen as “leveling the playing field,” a campaign-finance principle that the court has rejected three times in a row.

If the New York model is ruled unconstitutional, all that will remain is the lump-sum model, in which the government provides a publicly financed candidate with a small amount of money, regardless of how much they or their privately-financed opponents raise. This isn’t an especially workable system. As Justice Kagan points out in her dissent, Barack Obama raised over $750 million through private fundraising and only would have been eligible for about $100 million through the government’s lump-sum public financing system. If he’d chosen public financing, he almost certainly would have lost.

At least the court’s decision in Arizona should slow down James Bopp, the conservative lawyer who has filed dozens of lawsuits and wants all campaign finance laws ruled unconstitutional. Thanks to his efforts, a judge in Virginia recently ruled that corporations should be able to make unlimited donations to candidates. But this Supreme Court ruling should put a stop to this.

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Youtube Screenshot

Republicans need the political press to do a lot of bad journalism in order to carry out their strategy of forcing through devastating spending cuts by leveraging the prospect of a calamitous default on U.S. debt. They need political journalists to produce wishy-washy “both sides” coverage that hides the party’s ultimate culpability and shields it from blame. And the latest coverage from The New York Times shows that their plan may already be working.

It shouldn’t be difficult to acknowledge that Republicans will be the ones at fault if the U.S. breaches the statutory limit on federal borrowing in June. Members of Congress of both parties routinely voted for clean debt limit hikes during Donald Trump’s presidency, which also saw record debt increases. But with Joe Biden in the White House, GOP leaders startedsaying last fall that they would require significant spending cuts – including to Social Security and Medicare – alongside further debt limit increases if their party won the House.

Keep reading...Show less
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}