The Stakes in the McCutcheon Case to be Argued Tomorrow in Supreme Court
Statement by Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer
At stake in the McCutcheon case to be argued tomorrow before the Supreme Court is the question of whether individual donors will again be allowed to make $1 million contributions to political parties and $2 million contributions to support federal candidates, and whether federal officeholders will again be allowed to solicit such contributions.
At stake is whether we return to the system of legalized corruption we have had in the past and that has led to some of the worst Washington corruption scandals in the nation’s history.
At stake is whether presidential candidates, who in 2012 solicited $70,800 contributions -the maximum then allowed under the law- for their parties to support their presidential campaigns, will be permitted to solicit $1.2 million contributions for their parties in the 2016 presidential elections.
This case is not about whether a donor can write a check for a few more $10,000 contributions to Democratic state parties. It’s about whether a donor can contribute $1.2 million to the Democratic Party to support its presidential candidate, in response to a solicitation from President Obama.
There were 1,257 individuals who gave the maximum $70,800 in 2012 in response to solicitations by the presidential candidates in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
This case is not about whether Mr. McCutcheon can give a few more $2,600 contributions to federal candidates above the maximum of $48,600 he can currently give to all federal candidates in the 2014 election cycle. Instead, it’s about whether Mr. McCutcheon can write a check for $2.4 million to a joint fundraising committee in response to a solicitation from House Speaker Boehner to support House Republican candidates.
There were 591 donors who gave the maximum $46,200 allowed to be given to all federal candidates in the 2012 election cycle.
The Supreme Court has recognized for nearly 40 years that these kinds of million-dollar and multi-million contributions create opportunities for corruption and, for that reason, can be subject to contribution limits, consistent with the Constitution.
In 1976, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo upheld contribution limits, including overall contribution limits, on the grounds that they prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption,
Chief Justice Roberts in 2005 said in his confirmation hearings, “It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent.”
Chief Justice Roberts in 2006 in the case of Randall v. Sorrell joined an opinion that applied “stare decisis” to Buckley and said that Buckley should not be overturned without “special justification,” especially “where, as here, the principle at issue has become settled through iteration and reiteration over a long period.”
There is no such “special justification” for overturning Buckley. In particular, nothing in the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission provides any basis for overturning Buckley’s ruling that upholds contribution limits.
If Buckley is overturned and the overall limits are struck down with Chief Justice Roberts’ vote in McCutcheon, it would not just be “a jolt to the legal system,” but a severe jolt to our democracy as well. The Roberts court would be providing a license for influence-seeking donors and influence-selling federal officeholders to corrupt our political system and our democracy.
