Money = Free Speech: Implications of the US Supreme Court's Ruling Ending Political Donation Limits

Corporations are people. Money is free speech. 

 

The US Supreme Court has been nothing if not consistent in its ideological determination to reinforce the legal playing field's tilt towards established financial power and the means to maintain it.

By declaring in a previous ruling that corporations are entitled to the same rights as people and now, that the right to give money is identical to the right of free speech, the court is continuing to strike out on a path that seems to reward oligarchic government. 

It is not apparent from a careful or casual reading of the US Constitution how this attitude derives from the intent of the nation's Founding Fathers, who, though largely wealthy merchants or land owners, were interested in the rights of man, not corporations. As in many decision points at the intersection of public policy and private gain, there will probably be some unintended consequences of this action. As the accompanying article points out, that may come due to the more stringent reporting requirements - and more aggressive investors - who are less willing to tolerate pet political causes. In the interim, however, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, offered the following assessment:

 

“It’s a little bit ironic that we're spending so much time and energy and effort trying to support Ukraine as it emerges from corrupt and oligarchic government while we have a Supreme Court that is busily at home kicking down protections that protect American democracy from that same kind of oligarchic government.”

Harry Enten reports in Nate Silver's 538 Blog:

Over the past few elections, most people looking to get around donation limits gave tons of money to Super PACs. Now contributors can ingratiate themselves with a party by giving directly.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down biennial aggregate campaign contribution limits. For 2014, the overall limit was $123,200. There was a lower limit of $74,600 for donations to PACs and party committees (of which no more than $48,600 could be given to a nonnational party committee). And donors could give, at most, $48,600 to all candidates. At this point, the court hasn’t touched the limits to individual candidates. So, what’s the impact of this decision? Here are a few data points.

First, the parties will become more powerful. Over the past few elections, most people looking to get around donation limits gave tons of money to Super PACs. Now contributors can ingratiate themselves with a party by giving directly. Along the same lines, major bundlers (e.g. those who have a habit of getting ambassadorships) will gain more pull.

Second, very few donors hit the limits set out by the Federal Election Committee (FEC) in 2012. Per Open Secrets, only 2,972 donors maxed out to committees, and only 591 maxed out to candidates. Maxed-out donors leaned about 3 to 2 toward giving to Republican candidates. Only 646 donors hit the limit on both committees and candidates. These numbers, however, probably slightly underestimate the GOP advantage going forward, because top Super PAC donations leaned 2 to 1 toward Republicans in 2012, according to the Sunlight Foundation.

Finally, transparency may very well increase (at least a little). Who donates to Super PACs and how they do it has been fairly opaque. Donations to PACs, party committees and candidates are subject to more stringent FEC disclosure rules.