News

Supreme Court strikes down campaign donation caps

Supreme Court strikes down campaign donation caps

SUPREME COURT:On a 5-4 vote, the court struck down the overall limits on how much individuals can give to candidates, parties and political action committees in total during the federal two-year election cycle. Photo: Reuters

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expanded how much political donors can give candidates and parties in federal elections by striking down a key pillar of campaign finance law.

On a 5-4 vote, the court struck down the overall limits on how much individuals can give to candidates, parties and political action committees in total during the federal two-year election cycle.

The ruling leaves in place base limits on how much a donor can give individual candidates and laws that require candidates, parties and political action committees to disclose information about donors.

The court was divided over how sweeping the ruling actually is. The biggest impact is that a single donor can now give the maximum amount by law to as many federal candidates, parties and committees as he or she wishes.

The 5-4 split was along party lines, with the five justices appointed by Republican presidents joining the majority and the four appointed by Democratic presidents dissenting.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing on behalf of the court, said the justices did not reach the question of whether to overturn a key 1976 ruling, called Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld limits on campaign finance donations while also describing how courts should analyze such regulations. Justice Clarence Thomas, who voted with Roberts, said the court had gone further than the chief justice claimed.

Roberts said in his opinion that the aggregate limits violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects free speech. He rejected the contention of President Barack Obama’s administration that the limits are needed to fight corruption.

The caps “do little, if anything, to address that concern, while seriously restricting participation in the democratic process,” wrote Roberts, appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican.

The decision comes four years after the court’s landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling that cleared the way for increased independent corporate and union spending during federal elections.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling, along with Citizens United, “eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws.”

Wednesday’s ruling could threaten the legal architecture that underpins other campaign finance regulations.

The aggregate limits have been in place, in various forms, since 1974, with the most recent version dating back to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Republican donor Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, and the Republican National Committee (RNC) had challenged the contribution caps. Before Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision, donors could not exceed the $123,200 overall limit during the two-year period.

The case is McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commision, U.S. Supreme Court, 12-536.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller)

Recently Played

Latest Headlines

in Entertainment

Want something sold? Get Liam Neeson to pitch it

liamneeson

The "Taken" star has edged out fellow Irish actor Pierce Brosnan to be named the most effective celebrity pitchman.

in Entertainment

‘The Shining’ cast reunites for 35th anniersary

shining

Members of the cast and crew of classic horror film “The Shining” came together on Tuesday to commemorate the 35th…

in Entertainment

‘Saved by the Bell’ star headed to trial in alleged Christmas stabbing

dustindiamond

The actor who portrayed Screech on the hit '90s show faces multiple charges relating to a bar fight.

in Entertainment

‘Game of Thrones’ star overwhelmed with fame

maisiewilliams

One of the hit show's youngest cast members says she is struggling to cope with the fame that comes with her role.

in Music

B.B. King’s lawyer blames star’s will for ‘poison’ allegation

bbking

The late blues great's lawyer says money is the motivation behind the claims.