Skip to main content

Donation limits help keep politics honest

By Meredith McGehee, Special to CNN
updated 8:28 AM EDT, Wed October 2, 2013
A case challenging aggregate limits on individual campaign donations will go before the Supreme Court on October 8.
A case challenging aggregate limits on individual campaign donations will go before the Supreme Court on October 8.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Supreme Court takes on a challenge to $123,200 aggregate campaign contribution limit
  • Limit is the total you can give to federal candidates each two-year election cycle
  • Meredith McGehee: If court gets rid of limits, it invites corruption and gives advantage to the rich
  • Large contributions are corrupting, she says; they buy access and influence to power

Editor's note: Meredith McGehee is policy director of the Campaign Legal Center and heads McGehee Strategies, a public interest consulting business.

(CNN) -- Are you worried that millionaires don't have enough influence in our elections? If you can't contribute more than $123,000 to politicians, are your free speech rights harmed?

At least 99% of Americans would laugh at the absurdity of these questions, but not Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama political donor. McCutcheon v. FEC, his court challenge to the $123,200 aggregate contribution limit, has made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where it will be heard on October 8.

Aggregate limits -- or the total someone can contribute to federal candidates and committees each two-year election cycle -- was previously before the Supreme Court.

Meredith McGehee
Meredith McGehee

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court found the limits constitutional because they prevent corruption of federal officeholders and government decisions.

The court wrote, "But this quite modest restraint upon protected political activity serves to prevent evasion of the $1,000 contribution limitation by a person who might otherwise contribute massive amounts of money to a particular candidate" through "contributions to political committees likely to contribute to that candidate, or huge contributions to the candidate's political party."

Now, especially after throwing out a century's worth of law approving restrictions on corporate campaign expenditures in rulings, including Citizens United, one would expect the Supreme Court to leave some of its campaign finance precedents intact. With this challenge to another longstanding law, the court will have its chance.

One argument advanced by McCutcheon's supporters is that because the Citizens United decision unleashed millions of dollars in independent electoral spending, much of it from anonymous sources, the role of political parties has been diminished to the detriment of our political system. That's hogwash. McCutcheon supporters propose throwing out aggregate limits so the parties can raise more than $1 million from a single contributor.

The corruption that would arise from eliminating these limits is not hypothetical.
Meredith McGehee

Eliminating the aggregate limits would only invite more political corruption.

First, it would provide another advantage for the tiny fraction of Americans who have the means to give so lavishly. In 2012, only four out of 1,000 Americans made political contributions of $200 or more, and the proportion of Americans who give the maximum amount of contributions allowed under federal law is much smaller.

By way of perspective, McCutcheon challenges a contribution cap for individuals of $123,200 -- or more than twice the $51,017 the average American family earns a year before taxes. Eliminating this "quite modest restraint" would further empower the very few Americans who can afford to give such sums, and it would bring us pretty close to the definition of oligarchy.

Second, the corruption that would arise from eliminating these limits is not hypothetical. The record presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of McConnell v FEC -- the decision that upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign financing act -- confirmed that the parties can and do serve as conduits for huge donors seeking specific outcomes in Washington and state capitals across the country.

Not only does the lower court record make clear that large contributions buy access and influence -- read the depositions of Sen. Warren Rudman, R-New Hampshire; Alan Simpson, R-Wyoming, and Paul Simon, D-Illinois -- but they also affect Senate action.

For example, the court record shows that in 1996, during Senate consideration of an amendment to benefit Federal Express, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said a senior senator suggested to him that he support the amendment because "they just gave us $100,000."

The record reports that a popular generic drug bill died in Congress in 2002, shortly after two Republican Party congressional committees held a large gala fundraiser to raise almost $30 million in contributions. Among the largest contributors to the gala were GlaxoSmithKline PLC, PhRMA , Pfizer, Eli Lilly & Co., Bayer AG and Merck & Co.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, summed up the problem this way: "There's a terrible appearance when the Generic Drug Bill, which passes by 78 votes through the Senate, is not allowed to be brought up in the House shortly after a huge fundraiser with multimillion-dollar contributions from the pharmaceutical drug companies who are opposed to the legislation."

Third, allowing donors a direct route to funnel millions straight to parties and candidates will not stop the anonymous independent spending. These expenditures will persist because they offer distinct advantages: They allow donors to hide their identities from the public, and allow candidates to outsource the dirty work, like attack ads.

If the Supreme Court sides with McCutcheon, all it will have done is open new routes for corruption without closing the old ones.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Meredith McGehee.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 2:12 PM EDT, Fri August 1, 2014
By now it should be painfully obvious that this latest round of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis in Gaza is fundamentally different than its predecessors.
updated 5:24 PM EDT, Fri August 1, 2014
Sally Kohn says like the Occupy Wall Street protesters, Market Basket workers are asking for shared prosperity.
updated 7:31 PM EDT, Thu July 31, 2014
President Obama will convene an Africa summit Monday at the White House, and Laurie Garrett asks why the largest Ebola epidemic ever recorded is not on the agenda.
updated 2:03 PM EDT, Fri August 1, 2014
Seventy years ago, Anne Frank made her final entry in her diary -- a work, says Francine Prose, that provides a crucial link to history for young people.
updated 7:50 PM EDT, Thu July 31, 2014
Van Jones says "student" debt should be called "education debt" because entire families are paying the cost.
updated 3:41 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Stuart Gitlow says pot is addictive and those who smoke it can experience long-term psychiatric disease.
updated 7:00 PM EDT, Thu July 31, 2014
Marc Randazza: ESPN commentator fell victim to "PC" police for suggesting something outside accepted narrative.
updated 2:45 PM EDT, Thu July 31, 2014
Mark O'Mara says working parents often end up being arrested after leaving kids alone.
updated 4:31 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Shanin Specter says we need to strengthen laws that punish auto companies for selling defective cars.
updated 12:45 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Gabby Giffords and Katie Ray-Jones say "Between 2001 and 2012, more women were shot to death by an intimate partner in our country than the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined."
updated 7:58 AM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Vijay Das says Medicare is a success story that could provide health care for everybody, not just seniors
updated 1:43 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
S.E. Cupp says the entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner thinks for himself and refuses to be confined to an ideological box.
updated 9:11 AM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
A Christian group's anger over the trailer for "Black Jesus," an upcoming TV show, seems out of place, Jay Parini says
updated 4:28 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
LZ Granderson says the cyber-standing ovation given to Robyn Lawley, an Australian plus-size model who posted unretouched photos, shows how crazy Americans' notions of beauty have become
updated 3:39 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Carol Dweck and Rachel Simmons: Girls tend to have a "fixed mindset" but they should have a "growth mindset."
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT