The Comparison Makes Us Feel Better

Fortunately, our campaign financing system curtails private donations rather than encouraging them …

Since 2011, the inquiry of Quebec’s government [through the Charbonneau Commission] into campaign financing has showed us how some donors have influenced the province’s decision-making process. Party fundraising rules have been tightened up since the inquiry began.

But in the United States, they seem to be doing the complete opposite. Last Wednesday, in the case of McCutcheon v. the Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court eliminated limits on campaign contributions in a 5-4 ruling. Previously, a donor could contribute $5,200 per candidate, with a maximum of $48,600 for every two-year electoral cycle. As of Wednesday, donors are allowed to contribute $5,200 to the campaigns of every candidate for the House of Representatives and Senate, meaning donors can give up to $2,433,600 per two-year cycle. Donations to parties and political action committees that indirectly support candidates are now also unlimited. This decision will clearly allow rich donors to go on electoral spending sprees. Even with limits on financing, in 2012, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson spent about $60 million on the Mitt Romney campaign, after having donated $15 million to Newt Gingrich’s Republican nomination effort. We can only imagine what will happen in 2016, or even during the midterm election in November 2014.

The court’s decision is based on the notion that financial contributions to a candidate or party are a way for both individuals and organizations — such as companies or unions — to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights. For John Roberts, who has been chief justice of the Supreme Court since 2005, it is part of a long-term plan to guide America down a conservative path.

He is not worried about potential massive spending. In the ruling, he stated that since elected officials are under constant media surveillance, they want to maintain their image of integrity. Therefore, they will not let themselves be influenced by their donors, even though the officials are grateful for their generosity. After all, Roberts wrote, donors invest to influence election results, not the decision-making process. In that respect, Sheldon Adelson’s recent annual dinner for aspiring White House candidates was especially noteworthy. One of the potential candidates, the current governor of New Jersey, is known as a straight talker. During the dinner, he used the term “occupied territories” when speaking about Gaza and the security challenges Israel faces. He decided to apologize because Adelson is a staunch Zionist. To Adelson, the term “occupied territories” is practically an insult to the Jewish state, and his support is essential during the 2016 presidential elections. Adelson has not even endorsed anyone for the upcoming election, yet he already has influence on potential candidates.

Although our recent election was reminiscent of the tone and content found south of the border, we are fortunate that our electoral financing system curtails personal contributions instead of increasing them. Although donations are much lower than those in the United States, the government’s inquiry has shown us that some donors plan on influencing the decision-making process. We must remain vigilant — as the tone of the campaign has demonstrated, it is very easy to import the practices of our American neighbors.