Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Good questions
Next Post: Just get it done
Posted in:
* From an October 6, 2013 Reuters story about the US Supreme Court’s McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case…
The disputed section limits the aggregate amounts that a person can contribute in a two-year election cycle to candidates, political party committees and PACS. The Supreme Court has allowed government more latitude to enact such limits on contributions - as opposed to limits on independent spending on campaign activities - because contributions involve money that goes directly to a candidate or committee and could more likely lead to quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Base limits, such as the $2,600 for a candidate, are not at issue in McCutcheon. Rather it’s the aggregate cap of $48,600 on what an individual may give overall to federal candidates and the $74,000 that an individual may give to political party committees and PACs.
Erin Murphy, the attorney representing McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee before the justices, said the overall limits were unnecessary to fight any appearance of corruption and impinge on First Amendment rights.
As she has previously over the past two years, Kagan used her questions to lawyers to strategically telegraph arguments to her colleagues. When Kagan challenged Murphy with multi-million-dollar contribution scenarios, Kennedy immediately picked up the thread to question Murphy - and also question Kagan’s assertions.
Alito declared his suspicion of the line of hypotheticals Kagan raised. As Kagan, who sits to his left, faced him, Alito asked Solicitor General Verrilli, “How realistic is it that all of the state party committees, for example, are going to get money and they’re all going to transfer it to one candidate?”
More from Justice Alito…
“What troubles me about your argument, General Verrilli, and about the district court’s opinion is that what I see are wild hypotheticals that are not obviously plausible or — and lack, certainly lack any empirical support,” he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts called the arguments “divorced from reality.”
The Supremes eventually ruled 5-4 that limiting aggregate contributions would violate free speech rights.
* This past September, the Washington Post noted that “Just four years ago, the most a donor could give a national political party was $30,800″…
The national political parties are urging wealthy backers to give them 10 times more money than was allowed in the last presidential election, taking advantage of looser restrictions to pursue million-dollar donors with zeal.
Under the new plans, which have not been disclosed publicly, the top donation tier for the Republican National Committee has soared to $1.34 million per couple this election cycle. Democratic contributors, meanwhile, are being hit up for even more — about $1.6 million per couple — to support the party’s convention and a separate joint fundraising effort between the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign.
In return, elite donors are being promised perks such as exclusive retreats with top party leaders, VIP treatment at the nominating conventions and special dinners organized by contribution rank at this month’s RNC finance committee gala.
* And the Clinton campaign is taking full advantage, with a Chicago twist…
Here’s how it works: Donors are limited by how much they can give to campaign committees, national party committees and state party committees. A single donor can give $5,400 to a candidate’s campaign to cover both a primary and general election, $33,400 annually to a national party committee’s general fund and $10,000 annually to each state party. These limits are known as “base” contribution limits. (Additionally, donors can give $100,200 annually to each of the national party committee’s convention, building and legal funds thanks to a provision slipped into the 2014 omnibus budget bill.)
Since the Hillary Victory Fund links the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 33 state parties, the total amount a donor could give is $669,400 per year. Technically, a maximum contribution to the fund would include $330,000 to be split among the 33 state parties. Since party committees are allowed to make unlimited transfers between each other, that money can easily be sent to the state parties most advantageous to the candidate raising the money — in a swing state, for example. Or, as is happening with the Hillary Victory Fund, that money can be sent to the DNC, which redistributes it as they see fit.
Wealthy donors like Fred Eychaner, M.K. and J.B. Pritzker and Donald Sussman have seen their six-figure contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund split into $33,400 contributions to the DNC and $10,000 to a variety of state parties. The state parties have then sent the exact amounts received from Hillary Victory Fund donors directly to the DNC.
Emphasis added for obvious reasons.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:24 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Good questions
Next Post: Just get it done
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A Clinton always knows a way to get lots of money, just like chicken pox virus knows how to live in your spine and show up unannounced as shingles.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:32 am
“Money tends to corrupt, and limitless money corrupts without limits.” — Lord Acton (attributed)
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:35 am
PACs won’t transfer money to get around the caps??? Nice to see that the average Republican or Democratic committeeman in Illinois is smarter than 5 of the 9 supreme court justices.
Comment by Century Club Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:42 am
I’ve always figured that Roberts, Alito and Kennedy were doing a bit when it came to their seeming obliviousness to the corrupting influence of money in politics.
It’s not possible to reach such heights in the political world as they have and be that naive and ignorant.
Put it this way: Ronald Reagan accepted public financing, won two terms, and had the likes of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken doing perp walks down Wall Street.
Obama had to raise more than a billion for each of his two runs, and not one bankster has been prosecuted for driving the global economy into the ditch. If you read the civil settlement agreements the big banks made with the Justice Department, there is evidence of obvious fraud everywhere.
Reagan didn’t need to raise a billion dollars to get elected. Obama and everyone else running for president now does.
That makes certain criminals untouchable.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:45 am
We need Sanders.
Comment by CharlieKratos Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:47 am
Political money is like water, it finds all the cracks.
Comment by Anonish Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:55 am
Word - doing a bit, or more likely, they just don’t see money buying influence as corruption. It’s the natural order of things for the survival-of-the-fittest set.
Comment by Century Club Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 9:56 am
The system is definitely broken and while it conveniently can be twisted into the “Clintons are corrupt” narrative that VanillaMan is implying, the fact is McCutcheon was pushed by conservative interests. And while McCutcheon blew the aggregate cap, Congress also upped considerably what could be given to the national parties. Prior to 2015, you could only do the $33,400 to the DNC or RNC, but last minute language slipped by Republican leadership into the Cromnibus bill passed in December 2014 enabled the party committees to create separate accounts for building funds, recounts, and conventions and for those accounts, the limit is triple what the main party account limit is.
http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/campaign-finance-provisions-causing-cromnibus-heartburn/
Bottom line, the system is all kinds of broken.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:23 am
At least we know who’s doing the giving.
I’ve kind of waved the white flag when it comes to contribution limits. I’m more concerned at this point at the vast amounts of dark money pouring in to support the political system (Republicans disproportionately still at this stage, but the Democrats will eventually fully “mach” them, they’re catching up, as it becomes clear nothing will be enforced). God knows what kinds of secret quid pro quos will be struck in the future.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:44 am
One of the most shockingly naive things I ever read from a Supreme Court Justice:
“Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties.”
~Chief Justice John Roberts
Comment by Johnny Pyle Driver Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 10:54 am
VMan deserves special kudos for comparing the Clintons to shingles!
Comment by The Historian Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 11:09 am
I think it’s very important that we keep the flat tax rate and no millionaire’s tax. The wealthy need every cent. Buying elections isn’t cheap.
Comment by Carhartt Representative Thursday, Jan 7, 16 @ 12:08 pm