The Supreme Court made a controversial ruling on April 2 that determined that an individual can make campaign contributions to more than one candidate running for a federal office.
The court ruled 5-4 that people can donate money to multiple candidates based on a citizen’s right to free speech, according to an article from Los Angeles Times. This means that campaign contributions act as a form of speech and that limiting how many candidates a person may contribute to is limiting free speech.
Some Justices feel that there should be no limitations on the amount of money that is contributed.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, arguably the most conservative of all the justices, has written his own opinion. He said that he feels the ruling did not go far enough and that he would have removed all the contribution limitations, according to CBS. Such an extreme attitude can lead to reckless legislation on campaign contributions.
Many politicians are saying that this ruling opens a can of worms for corruption, and risks the interests of the wealthy drowning out the voices of the people, according to CNN.
Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, the democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would hold a hearing to discuss the possible impact of “alarming Supreme Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws.”
Lawmakers have also expressed concern that this ruling might lead to more legislation that could weaken campaign finance laws, which aim to protect the system from corruption.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, stated “it could lead to interpretations of the law that would result in the end of any fairness in the political system as we know it,” according to CNN.
Some republicans are uneasy about the ruling, even though it was a republican majority in the Supreme Court that ruled it, according to the Los Angeles Times. This is not to say that all republicans share this uncertainty, but some well-known republicans who are supporters of campaign finance reform have openly expressed concerns.
“I am concerned that today’s ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by a majority of the court to dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special interests on American politics,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, to the Business Insider.
“I predict that as a result of recent Court decisions, there will be scandals involving corrupt public officials and unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions that will force the system to be reformed once again,” McCain said.
The ruling does not change the amount of money that an individual may donate to a candidate. The limit stays at $5,200 for any one candidate per two-year election cycle.
Even then, the donations are further limited to just $2,600 in the general and $2,600 primary elections, according to the LA Times. The only difference is that an individual can donate to multiple candidates, so long as only $5,200 is spent.
Despite outcry from both political parties, I feel that politicians and the media exaggerate the reaction to the ruling.
I see this particular ruling is reasonable, I agree that this could lead to more dramatic legislation, which could create an imbalance in the system.
As long as the integrity within the legislation isn’t compromised and funding is monitored, this ruling shouldn’t spin into anything dire.