Big Money Comes to Politics
The Supreme Court released a decision of considerable importance on Wednesday, April 2: From now on, citizens have the right to give as much money as they want to the candidates of their choice. For 10 years, Congress has imposed limits to control the influence of the richest Americans and businesses in politics. Until now, it was not possible in any given election to give more than $5,200 to a candidate, and the total amount that anyone could give during an election cycle could not surpass $123,000.
These barriers to Big Money’s influence on power came crashing down with the 5-4 decision. And this is only the beginning.
This decision follows another, called Citizens United, decided four years earlier by the same court, which removed donation limits for unions and corporations. The reasoning behind this decision was that the limits were a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression.
In the opinion released on Wednesday, John G. Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, wrote that all citizens should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions, regardless of the amount of their wealth. In enacting the law on campaign contribution limitations, the legislature had intended to treat different citizens differently.
For Roberts, transfers of money between citizens and elected officials should only be prohibited when they constitute bribes in the strictest sense of the term. As if the act of contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a candidate would not make them more sensitive to the cause that you support, whether it be deregulation of the telecommunications industry or raising the minimum wage.
Since he has joined the Court, John G. Roberts has been hostile toward any form of regulation on contributions that wealthy Americans can give to candidates for elected office. As in Citizens United, the justices on Wednesday voted in two blocs: the five conservative justices (Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy) on one side, the four liberals (Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) on the other. These decisions are the first steps toward dismantling congressional voting laws passed to limit the undue influence of money and wealthy Americans. It is for this reason that the presidential election is so important. The occupant of the White House is only there, at best, for eight years, but the Supreme Court justices are appointed by that occupant for life, and their influence is disproportionate to the president’s.
These barriers to Big Money’s influence on power came crashing down with the 5-4 decision. And this is only the beginning.
This decision follows another, called Citizens United, decided four years earlier by the same court, which removed donation limits for unions and corporations. The reasoning behind this decision was that the limits were a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression.
In the opinion released on Wednesday, John G. Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, wrote that all citizens should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions, regardless of the amount of their wealth. In enacting the law on campaign contribution limitations, the legislature had intended to treat different citizens differently.
For Roberts, transfers of money between citizens and elected officials should only be prohibited when they constitute bribes in the strictest sense of the term. As if the act of contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a candidate would not make them more sensitive to the cause that you support, whether it be deregulation of the telecommunications industry or raising the minimum wage.
Since he has joined the Court, John G. Roberts has been hostile toward any form of regulation on contributions that wealthy Americans can give to candidates for elected office. As in Citizens United, the justices on Wednesday voted in two blocs: the five conservative justices (Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy) on one side, the four liberals (Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) on the other. These decisions are the first steps toward dismantling congressional voting laws passed to limit the undue influence of money and wealthy Americans. It is for this reason that the presidential election is so important. The occupant of the White House is only there, at best, for eight years, but the Supreme Court justices are appointed by that occupant for life, and their influence is disproportionate to the president’s.