Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., right, accompanied by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., speak to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 2, 2014, about the Supreme Court1s decision in the McCutcheon vs. FEC case, in which the Court struck down limits in federal law on the aggregate campaign contributions individual donors may make to candidates, political parties, and political action committees. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Court loosens rules for big political campaign donors

As the 2014 campaign picks up speed, justices say restrictions violate free-speech rights.

First Published Apr 02 2014 02:54 pm • Last Updated Apr 03 2014 07:43 am

A new Supreme Court ruling will allow the wealthy to pump more money into politics, a move that is likely to bolster state and national parties. Republicans in Utah hailed the decision as a free-speech victory, while Democrats expressed concern that this will only heighten the pressure to raise ever-increasing piles of campaign cash.

In the 5-4 decision Wednesday, the court’s conservative-leaning justices struck down aggregate-contribution limits, though individual limits remain on the books. What that means is that while a donor can still give no more than $2,600 per candidate per election, he or she can now give that much money to any number of candidates. The same goes for donations to national and state parties and the political-action committees controlled by corporations, unions and candidates.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

Before the ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the most a wealthy donor could give in a two-year period was $123,200, which would be split among candidates, political parties and PACs. The new ceiling is north of $3.5 million.

"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the decision was "a victory for all Americans and for the free-speech protections that individuals of every political stripe hold dear."

That’s not how the four liberal-leaning justices saw it.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a harsh dissent, saying Roberts and those who sided with him used faulty legal logic and their decision "eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve."

Breyer wrote that the decision too narrowly defined potential political corruption as only bribery and didn’t "consider attempts to garner influence over access to elected officials or political parties."

Campaign-finance attorney Matthew Sanderson said the ruling could be a step toward eliminating individual-donation limits, particularly when this decision is read in conjunction with the Citizens United ruling that allowed unlimited contributions to super-PACs, which are not supposed to coordinate directly with candidates.

"It does spell, very subtly, doom for the other contribution limits that are still on the books," said Sanderson, an attorney at Washington, D.C.-based Caplin & Drysdale, who is a Utah native.

story continues below
story continues below

That’s fine with James Evans, chairman of the Utah Republican Party, who believes the ruling will make it easier for the GOP to collect contributions for federal races.

"I believe that money does equal speech," he said Wednesday. "As long as it is transparent, and the public knows whom is giving what, I don’t think there should be any limitations. I’m supportive of that."

Before the ruling, Utah’s political parties could collect unlimited contributions from corporations or people for state purposes, but only $10,000 from individuals to support candidates in U.S. Senate and House contests. The Democratic and Republican parties in Utah often had to fund get-out-the-vote drives or voter databases through harder-to-get federal funds because they may support the party’s congressional candidates.

Now people can contribute $10,000 annually to as many state parties as they want, and Sanderson expects the parties will create joint fundraising committees to make it easier for high-dollar donors to do just that. Such a move would allow the parties to wrestle back some of the power that super-PACs have gained in recent years.

About 400 joint fundraising committees exist now, allowing donors to write a single check that would be split among a candidate, a political party and other committees. President Barack Obama used such joint committees to raise more than $492 million in his re-election bid, largely by appearing at fundraisers in which donors often gave tens of thousands of dollars. He could now legally command much higher contributions from attendees.

On a smaller level, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has increased his use of his Beehive Victory Fund in recent years. The fund has allowed him to take larger checks from some of his loyal supporters, such as his former bosses at Nu Skin. He then divvies the money among his campaign account, his PAC and the National Republican Congressional Committee. In the past two cycles, he has raised more than $180,000 this way.

Matt Lyon, executive director at the Utah Democratic Party, said the ruling will make it easier for candidates and parties to raise money, but he wouldn’t say that makes the court’s decision a good thing.

"It impacts the game, but I think there is still too much money in politics," he said. "Our candidates still feel the constant pull to seek the all-mighty campaign dollar."


Twitter: @mattcanham

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.