The supreme court has played a major role in the past few decades in shaping campaign finances in the United States. Today, campaign finances play a major role in the election of officials in our nation. Thus, the decisions made by the supreme court on the constitutionality of funding campaigns ultimately has a massive impact on the politics of the United States. The cases that I will be focusing on that deal with campaign finances are Buckley v. Valeo, McConnell v. FEC, Citizens United v. FEC, and McCutcheon v. FEC. Each one of these cases has focused on campaign finances in a way that shaped the political climate of the United States.
After Watergate, corruption was on every American citizen and politicians mind. In 1974, with hopes of limited the corruption in Washington, congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act. The campaign finance laws themselves limited the amount of money one person could contribute to a campaign as well as required contributions over a certain amount to be disclosed. Within this amendment, an independent agency was established regulate and enforce campaign finance laws in US presidential election—the Federal Election Commission. (Mission) However, as these laws went into effect and begin to be regulated, many people questioned the constitutionality of these laws. It was eventually filed as a lawsuit by Republican Senator Buckley and Democratic Senator McCarthy along with multiple bipartisan organizations that the campaign finance laws that were in place violated their first amendment right to free speech and association. They filed these claims against Francis R. Valeo, the secretary of state at the time and a non-voting member of the FEC. (Buckley, Justia) Their case was struck down, but appealed to the Supreme Court. The Burger Court heard the case and decided that the restrictions on how much one person could contribute to a campaign did not restrict or violate first amendment rights. However, they agreed that the limit that the laws set on independent or personal contributions did violate first amendment rights. (Buckley, Oyez)
In 2002, Congress decided to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. This federal law became known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or the McCain-Feingold Act as Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold were the chief sponsors of the bill. This bill focused on banning “soft money” and electioneering communications. stopping ads that were paid for by one issue groups targeting one candidate within 30 days of an election. Soft money has no limits on it and is given directly to political parties. This money is not meant to be used to support campaigns, however, it is very easy for political parties to manipulate their messages so that soft money is ultimately funding the support of a candidate indirectly. (Mott) Electioneering communications refers to the stopping of ads that were paid for by one issue groups and non-profits that target one candidate within 30 days of an election (What). Knowing that parts of the bill they were creating could potentially be unconstitutional or controversial, they included an early trial along with a direct appeal to the Supreme Court provision into the bill. The initial hearing determined that the strict ban on soft money was unconstitutional but some of the limits of advertising. When it got to the Supreme Court, with Majority whip Mitch McConnell taking on the FEC, there were two questions that needed answering: is the banning of soft money in violation of the first amendment’s protection of free speech and/or give Congress too much power in regulating elections as outlined in Article 1, Section 4 of the US Constitution and is the regulation of advertisements content, funding, or publication date violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the court answered both questions with a no. The justices cite the fact that restricting soft money is within the interest of preventing corruption. In their decision, they state that these restrictions on advertising are necessary to maintain integrity and honesty within advertisements. They found that, overall, there was very minimal restriction on free speech within these laws. (McConell)
Over the next seven years, the most important campaign finance case to date ensued. During the 2008 primary, a conservative non-profit Citizens United made a film that criticized Hillary Clinton (then running for the Democratic presidential nomination) heavily. They wanted to have advertisements for this movie air less than 30 days before the election started, which was prohibited by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Citizens United outlined the sections of the BCRA that they rationed targeted their First Amendment right to free speech when applied to their specific situation—sections 201, 203, and 311. Section 203 prevents corporations from funding electioneering communications from their general funds. Section 201 and 311 combined require the addition of a disclaimer on advertisements that are not authorized by the candidate that the advertisement is supporting. Using the precedent of McConnell v. FEC Citizens United’s claims were originally shot down. However, the case got appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case on November 14, 2008 and it was argued on March 24, 2009. (Citizens)
During the first argument of Citizens United v. FEC, there were four main questions seeking answers from the justices: Did the McConnell decision resolve all challenges to BRCA, is there an unconstitutional burden on electioneering communication requirements since political speech is protected when campaign speech is not, if there is not a clear for or against stance in the communication do the regulations of BCRA still apply, and should a feature length documentary about a candidate that is running for office be classified as an advertisement (Citizens)? During the deliberation, the room seems to have been split in a 4 to 4 standstill. The key vote came down to the more moderate, less predictable remember of the court—Kennedy. ~podcast more on this~ So, the case was reargued on September 9, 2009.
The Court’s final decision was 5-4 saying that the corporate funding of candidates and political broadcasts cannot be limited and is protected by the First Amendment. This marinated that corporation speech is still political speech. Their decision also held that Citizen United’s documentary was to be held under the requirements of BCRA and that direct contributions from corporations and unions should be banned. This decision was heavily protested now and still is. (Citizens) This caused monumental changes in states laws—according the New York Times twenty-four states were required to change their laws after this decision was announced (Urbina). This decision has had an even bigger impact on politics than legislation, this decision has allowed corporations to funnel money virtually endlessly into elections and candidates that they support. This case is also linked to the creation of Super PACs. Super PACs are political action committees that can raise money from any individual group (including corporations) without any limits on donation size. A key example of this is the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers own 84% of Koch Industries—the second-largest privately held company in the US. They are known as being big spenders and influencers in Libertarian and Republican think tanks and campaigns. In 2012, the brothers and their collected network gave nearly $400 million dollars to Republican efforts. They had budgeted $889 million for the 2016 election, but ended up not contributing it after Trump won the primaries. Putting this into perspective, in the 2012 election the Republican National Committee itself along with the two Republican campaign committees spent $657 million. This means that the Koch brothers singlehandedly managed to nearly double the Republican budget in 2012 and were planning on giving more than the Republican party itself spent in 2016. (Confessore) This type of spending is undeniably extremely influential in an election. This decision allowed for corporations to play a big part in influencing the political climate of the United States, leaving many questioning if the integrity of democracy was lost in this decision while prioritizing freedom of speech in the form of the rich. With the weight of the decision of this case as motivation, a group of protestors interrupted a supreme court oral argument on the five-year anniversary of the Citizens United decision (Lerner). This really shows the impact that some see these rulings having on American politics and democracy.
In 2014, another campaign finance case reached the Supreme court, McCutcheon v. FEC. This case also focused on a law passed in the BCRA, the total limit of contributions. When the BCRA passed, it made it so the limitations an individual could donate was on a two-year cycle instead of capped annually. The case was brought on by Alabama resident, Shaun McCutcheon. He was a republican voting in the 2011-2012 cycle who wanted to donate more than the amounts that were allowed by the BCRA limits placed. He used the argument that worked for Citizens United, that these limitations were violating his first amendment right of free speech. This case was appealed to the Supreme Court, where they would answer the question of the constitutionality of the two-year contribution limit that was currently being enforced by the FEC due to the BCRA. The court again ruled 5-4, in favor of McCutcheon. In the opinion of the court, it was stated that this limitation restricted an individual’s ability to participate in democracy and does little to prevent corruption, the original intent of all the restrictions outlined in the BCRA. This ruling ultimately overruled the law in place, allowing individuals to spend up to $2,700 per candidate rather than total. (McCutcheon)