Supreme Court steps into campaign contribution controversy

October 5, 1999
Web posted at: 2:14 p.m. EDT (1814 GMT)

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court returned to the contentious topic of campaign finance contributions Tuesday, hearing arguments on Missouri's contribution limits law for state races.

However, it quickly became evident in Tuesday's arguments that the court may be looking at the issue in a much broader sense -- and that justices may be divided over the issue.

"Most people assume -- I certainly do -- that someone making an extraordinarily large contribution is going to get something extraordinary in return," Justice David H. Souter said at one point.

Seeming sympathetic to the contribution limits Missouri had in place before they were struck down as free-speech violations, Souter asked why concrete proof of corruption is necessary "for something that seems so inherently plausible."

But Justice Antonin Scalia, repeatedly attacking contribution limits, asked Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, "Do you seriously think there is a danger of corruption or the appearance of corruption?"

Nixon said the appearance of corruption is "inherent" whenever large contributions are made, but Scalia appeared unconvinced.

The court is expected to announce its ruling by late June, and a decision that significantly alters campaign-finance law by striking down or vastly increasing the limits conceivably could cause serious confusion for the 2000 election campaigns.

In a landmark 1976 decision, in a case called Buckley vs. Valeo, the court said free-speech rights trump any attempt to limit an individual candidate's spending. But that decision drew a distinction between expenditures, which cannot be capped, and contributions, for which it upheld a $1,000 limit for federal elections.

Nothing in today's argument suggested the court was rethinking that distinction. Virtually all questions focused on contributions alone.

Nixon urged the court to reaffirm its 1976 decision. Walking away from the case, he said, would lead the "vast majority of citizens to believe their government literally is for sale."

But D. Bruce La Pierre, a St. Louis lawyer representing Missouri residents who successfully challenged the contribution limits, disagreed. "The government should not limit the voice of some to amplify the voice of others," he argued.

Numerous groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, suggesting a broad scope of action.

James Bopp, representing a coalition of conservative groups such as the National Right to Life PAC and the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund, called for removing all contribution limits.

Missouri officials must prove "that corruption exists or that the electorate has a reasonable perception of ... corruption," Bopp said. "They can do neither."

At the other end of the political spectrum, Derek Cressman of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group said, "It's time for the court to reconsider Buckley and recognize that the First Amendment was not intended to give a few fat cats the right to drown out the voices of ordinary Americans."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

ELECTION 2000

Gore says he's the 'underdog'; announces lower fund-raising totals (9-30-99) MORE HEADLINES

ROTHENBERG
What's at stake in Election 2000 Senate Overview House Overview Governors Overview

CALENDAR
See how quickly the primary and caucus season will take off with this calendar.

RACES
If you need to know who's up in 1999 or 2000 and what seats are open launch this quick guide.

POLLS
Check out the lastest numbers or dig back into the poll archives.

MESSAGE BOARDS
Democratic Presidential Primary GOP Presidential Primary Third Party Candidates Congressional races Senator Hillary Clinton?

Supreme Court steps into campaign contribution controversy

MORE STORIES:

Tuesday, October 5, 1999