The Supreme Court is struggling, like many in this country, to make sense of the growing influence of money on elections and campaigning. A close 5-4 decision earlier this week takes a step in the right direction.

The high court ruled in a 15-year-old case that states can place caps on how much political parties can spend in conjunction with candidates in congressional races. The ruling, supporters say, may end the practice of using huge amounts of party money in conjunction with a candidates’ money to help win elections, a practice known as “coordinated expenditures.”

The ruling will stop what has become common practice since campaign spending reform was passed after Watergate. Contributions to candidates and political parties are limited and must be reported to the FCC. But political parties use their money to help specific candidates, mostly for mass mailings and ads that support the candidate. In 2000, Republicans spent $427 million and Democrats $265 million in these kinds of expenditures

Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, said that unlimited spending by parties “undermines” the entire purpose of campaign finance reform. Political parties basically found a way to ignore spending limits, and both have done it for years. The practice, in effect, allowed more spending for a candidate because a corporation or individual could give the maximum amount to the individual candidate and then the maximum amount to the party, knowing the party money would be used for the candidate.

These expenditures were more common when this case was first filed 15 years ago. Today, the unregulated soft money that goes to political action committees is much more prevalent and troublesome. Those contributions are what the McCain-Feingold bill that passed the Senate 51-49 address.

But this ruling does uphold an important distinction in the complicated campaign finance debate — a majority on the court supports the notion that placing limits on campaign spending is constitutional. A strong argument can be made that limiting campaign contributions and spending violates the First Amendment right of free speech.

Regulating the huge soft money contributions, however, is critical for any real reform. This ruling could help that happen.

“(This ruling) shows that the Supreme Court is sensitive to the potential for corruption that large contributions can bring,” said Larry Noble, who heads the Center for Responsible Politics.

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News