Let candidates and PACs share the bounty

Earlier this year, proponents of free speech won an important case that my supporters and I fought in the lower courts, eventually prevailing in the Supreme Court of the United States. In McCutcheon v. FEC, SCOTUS struck down aggregate limits on political contributions. I did not challenge the limits on individual contributions; only the total number of such contributions a single donor can make. 

Yet many said my case would open the floodgates to corruption and undue influence on politicians. They were wrong.  Billions were spent on the mid-term elections in a fair and transparent way. Candidates from both parties had more opportunity than ever to make their case directly to voters.

{mosads}In another way, however, we did open some floodgates by encouraging a healthy reappraisal of all existing donation limits. That was readily apparent on December 9, 2014 when Congress included a provision in the omnibus spending bill it passed. The provision raises the base limits on donations to political parties nearly ten-fold – an annual base limit of $97,200 for each party committee.

The response from the opposition was as expected. “This makes the Great Train Robbery look like a petty misdemeanor,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. 

I suppose Lord Cornwallis said much the same thing about the Battle of Bunker Hill. In fact, this current legislative action is equally a victory for free speech – not because it eliminates caps on donations, which do make sense as deterrents to corruption, but because it increases existing limits that imposed untenable burdens on political parties.    

The problem, however, is that the victory is only a partial one. Congress should raise the base limits for political action committees and individual candidates too, not just parties. A $10,000 or even $25,000 limit would help candidates make their case directly to the public without relying on outside groups. I don’t make any claim to know where the line is, but I am convinced that it should be higher. 

Whatever actions are undertaken, the underlying issues will remain controversial. (McCutcheon v. FEC was a split decision.) The specious argument that Congress has offered up “government for sale” will persist. Prominent members of both parties continue to complain that actions like the one just taken by Congress will restrict political participation to the wealthy. These straw men just aren’t going to go away.  

In response, we must therefore continue to hammer home the point that increased limits actually encourage transparency. If candidates and PACs share in the bounty that Congress just accorded the parties, they will have less to hide. By contrast, under the current system, the candidates themselves cannot control the covert power of special interest groups to influence the debate. The underground money trail simply makes it impossible to hold politicians accountable. 

Congress has at least made a good start. I’m encouraged by the fact that incumbents on Capitol Hill have chosen to begin loosening the Byzantine restrictions. After all, no one benefits more from an overly controlled process than incumbents. It might have been a far more self-interested decision for Congress to have maintained the lower caps.  

Perhaps the floodgates will continue to open wider. Once the Republicans take office in 2015, and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) becomes Majority Leader, additionally aggressive initiatives may be in the offing. Perhaps too, other plaintiffs will be encouraged by the new provision to legally challenge the existing base limits for candidates and PACs. If so, they should be forewarned that they’ll likely face the same public vilification as I endured. 

Well, Bunker Hill was dangerous too. But that fight was certainly worth it and, speaking from experience, so is this one.

McCutcheon, an electrical engineer in Alabama is the successful plaintiff in McCutcheon vs FEC, chairman of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, and author of Outsider Inside the Supreme Court.