McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission and the case for capless campaign spending

Not long after the Supreme Court announced earlier this year that it would hear McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a case concerning election contribution limits, political commentators began to hype the alleged dangers of money in our political process. In recent weeks, with the Supreme Court scheduled to hear arguments in the case in October,...

Not long after the Supreme Court announced earlier this year that it would hear McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a case concerning election contribution limits, political commentators began to hype the alleged dangers of money in our political process. In recent weeks, with the Supreme Court scheduled to hear arguments in the case in October, the same chorus has started up anew.

But as soon as you look beyond misleading rhetoric about “legalized bribery” into the details of McCutcheon, you’ll see the uneven playing field campaign contribution caps create.

At issue in McCutcheon are Federal Election Commission, or FEC, rules that limits an individual’s combined contributions to all political parties and candidates for federal office to $25,000 per election cycle – a limitation that doesn’t apply to unions, corporations, political action committees, or any other kind of association. That means that you and I, for instance, would not have the option of giving to as many political candidates we feel represent our personal convictions – we would have to stop when we had spent a total of $25,000. The Teamsters union and Exxon Mobile, on the other hand, can contribute as much they want.

Shaun McCutcheon, the plaintiff in this case, is an Alabama resident and supporter of candidates “interested in advancing the cause of liberty.” He has donated to 15 campaigns so far and reached the $25,000 contribution limit, but he wants to support other candidates who share his concerns about expansive government power.

Why should we care about the fight to donate freely? Because being able to give financial support to the persons and organizations we feel best represent our views is a critical part of the Democratic process, regardless of where one lies on the political spectrum. And speaking out requires money – television, Internet and radio ads aren’t free. Expenditure limits put a ceiling on the amount of political discourse that can occur in an election cycle, when robust public discourse is most needed. While associations of people ought to be able to pool together their resources and back the candidates of their choice, it is no less important for an individual to be able to do this on his or her own.

This same idea is behind the Liberty Justice Center’s lawsuit challenging the Illinois Disclosure and Regulation of Campaign Contribution and Expenditures Act, which limits how much individuals, unions, corporations and other associations can give to candidates in an election season, but leaves political parties and their leaders completely uninhibited. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to speak out and support whatever candidates or issues they like – and to whatever extent they like. If the First Amendment means anything, it at least prohibits the government from discriminating against some speakers in favor of others. Critics of unlimited campaign spending claim that large donations have a corrupting influence on politicians, comparing them to bribes given to make sure a politician pushes a contributor’s agenda at the expense of the public interest. But studies show that contribution limits have no effect on political corruption at all. And even if this were true, to single out and prohibit individuals from giving to their favored candidates but not limit unions or corporations in the same way is arbitrary and clearly belies any concern with corruption.

Supporters of free speech should welcome a decision in favor of the plaintiffs in McCutcheon v. FEC. With the right decision, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to take an important step toward restoring free speech and equal treatment to our electoral process.