Affidavits in McConnell Case Document Need to Limit Large Contributions at Stake in Case Brought by McCutcheon, RNC
By Fred Wertheimer, President Democracy 21
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
The case was brought by Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee and it challenges the constitutionality of the overall limits on the total amount an individual donor can contribute to all party committees and PACs, and to all federal candidates, in a two-year election cycle.
The current overall contribution limits includes an overall limit of $74,600 on contributions by an individual to all political party committees and PACs, and an overall limit of $48,600 on contributions by an individual to all federal candidates, in a two-year election cycle.
Most of the public discussion by the opponents of the overall limits has focused on striking the limits that apply to the total amount Mr. McCutcheon can give to all candidates. The opponents have generally ignored discussing the overall limit on the total amount an individual can give to all party committees.
This case is not about whether Mr. McCutcheon can give a few more $2,600 contributions to all federal candidates above the overall contribution limit of $48,600 to federal candidates.
It is about whether House Speak Boehner can solicit and Mr. McCutcheon can give a $2.4 million contribution to a joint fundraising committee for use by each of the House candidates in Speaker Boehner’s party.
This case is not about whether President Obama in 2012 could have solicited a few more $10,000 contributions for a couple of additional Democratic state party committees above the overall contribution limit of $70,800 to all party committees that was in effect in 2012.
It is about whether President Obama could have solicited and individuals could have given nearly $1.2 million per donor to a joint fundraising committee of the Democratic Party to support Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign.
If the overall limit on party committees is struck down, donors in the future would be able to contribute up to nearly $1.2 million per donor to a single political party in a two-year election cycle. (See Democracy 21 Fact Sheet released on September 24.)
The corrupt soft money system ended by Congress in 2002 would be returned to American politics.
The contributions that would be permitted if the overall limit on contributions to parties is struck down are the same kind of large contributions that Congress prohibited donors from giving to political parties in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Congress also prohibited officeholders and candidates from soliciting such contributions in the Act.
Whether a huge contribution is given to one joint fundraising committee consisting of multiple party committees or given through a number of separate contributions to multiple party committees, the result will be the same. Donors will give and officeholders and candidates will solicit contributions up to nearly $1.2 million per donor for a single party.
In 2003, the Supreme Court in McConnell v Federal Election Commission upheld the constitutionality of the prohibition on giving large “soft money” contributions to parties.
In 2010 the Supreme Court in Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission summarily reaffirmed the decision in McConnell, upholding the prohibition on large “soft money” contributions to parties by a 6 to 3 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito voting in the majority.
In upholding the soft money prohibition, the Court in McConnell said:
The idea that large contributions to a national party can corrupt or, at the very least, create the appearance of corruption of federal candidates and officeholders is neither novel nor implausible…
The question for present purposes is whether large soft moneycontributions to national party committees have acorrupting influence or give rise to the appearance ofcorruption. Both common sense and the ample record inthese cases confirm Congress’ belief that they do.
In upholding the prohibition on officeholders and candidates soliciting large “soft money” contributions, the Court in McConnell said:
Large soft-money donations at a candidate’s or officeholder’s behest give rise to all of the same corruption concerns posed by contributions made directly to the candidate or officeholder.
If the overall limits on contributions to party committees were struck down in McCutcheon, both the prohibition on large contributions to a party and the prohibition on officeholders soliciting such large contributions would be eviscerated.
Affidavits in McConnell Case Support Prohibition on Large Contributions to Parties
A comprehensive record was developed in the McConnell case that documented the corrupting dangers that resulted from large “soft money” contributions being given to political parties.
Affidavits were given by individuals who had lived within the “soft money” system. They are just as relevant today in identifying the dangers of corruption that would result if the overall limits on contributions to parties were struck down in McCutcheon:
Set forth below are a few excerpts from the affidavits filed in the McConnell case to support the constitutionality of the prohibition on large “soft money” contributions:
Former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH):
Individuals on both sides of the table recognize that larger donations effectively ‘purchase’ greater benefits for donors…Large soft money contributions in fact distort the legislative process. They affect what gets done and how it gets done. They affect whom Senators and House members see, whom they spend their time with, what input they get, and – make no mistake about it – this money affects outcomes as well.
Former Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR):
I think the tobacco industry got what they expected when, after they had given scads of money to both the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a majority of Republicans killed the tobacco bill. … It was the best investment that the tobacco industry ever made.
Soft money gives big corporations and the very wealthy an inordinate advantage over others in the legislative process. If these corporations or individuals have given $100,000 to either or both parties, their chances of securing a change in legislation in Congress is exponentially increased. Often donors seek legislative changes so that they or their business can reap large financial gains.
Our current campaign finance system is crass, unholy and destructive of democracy. People are dreaming if they think a democracy can survive when elected officials and the bills they consider are beholden to big donors. Currently, you can’t find a better method of ensuring government help from time-to-time than to make significant soft money donations.
Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY):
I have seen firsthand how the current campaign financing system prostitutes ideas and ideals, demeans democracy, and debases debate.
Too often, Members’ first thought is not what is right or what they believe, but how it will affect fundraising. Who, after all, can seriously contend that a $100,000 donation does not alter the way one thinks about – and quite possibly votes on – an issue? Donations from the tobacco industry to Republicans scuttled tobacco legislation, just as contributions from the trial lawyers to Democrats stopped tort reform.
Former Senator Paul Simon (D-IL):
[Simon said in his affidavit that soft money donations from Federal Express helped it win an end-of-session legislative battle to shift coverage of its drivers from the National Labor Relations Act to the Railway Act.]
This was a clear example of donors getting their way, not on the merits of the legislation, but just because they had been big contributors. I do not think there is any question that this is the reason it passed.
It is not unusual for large contributors to seek legislative favors in exchange for their contributions.
When people have donated $50,000 to $100,000, they are going to want their pound of flesh after the elections. I believe people usually contribute to party committees on both sides of the aisle for the same reason that Federal Express does, because they want favors.
Former Senator and RNC Chairman Bill Brock:
[Soft money] contributions compromise our elected officials. When elected officials solicit these contributions from interests who almost always have matters pending before the Congress, these elected officials become at least psychologically beholden to those who contribute. It is inevitable and unavoidable. The contributors, for their part, feel they have a ‘call’ on these officials.
Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler (SC):
Contributions of large sums of money to parties and campaigns undermine the integrity of the political process, create inequities in the system, and produce a privileged class of political actors.
Conclusion
By the 2000 presidential election, the soft money system of large contributions to the political parties had grown into a $500 million national scandal. Members of Congress in both parties and both Houses recognized that large contributions to the parties, solicited by federal officeholders, were being used to corrupt government decisions.
In 2002, Congress prohibited the giving and solicitation of large “soft money” contributions for the parties. In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the prohibitions as constitutional in order to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption.
If the overall contribution limit on the total amount individuals can give to parties is now struck down in the McCutcheon case, large contributions from individuals would return to our political system, bringing with them the opportunities for corruption that were documented in Congress in 2002 and in the McConnell case in 2003.
The Roberts Court would open the door to widespread corruption of government and our political system if the Court were to strike the overall contribution limits.
