In defence of McCutheon v. FEC

Though it may not look like it, the recent Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v. FEC has done the First Amendment a good service by striking down unconstitutional barriers against free speech.

As with all legal cases, a decent understanding of the facts is necessary for understanding the jurisprudence behind the case. Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, sought to donate money to various Republican candidates: 28 to be precise.

He did so by donating a combined $33,088 to 16 Republican candidates, though in doing so, he was prevented from donating to 12 more because of the Federal Election Commission’s biannual aggregate limit.

In other words, McCutcheon could not pay more money during that election cycle. McCutcheon filed suit, arguing that the biannual aggregate limit was unconstitutional as it abridged his right of free speech.

Naturally, coming off of the heels of the intensely bitter debate from Citizens United v. FEC, there was great dismay when the Court struck down the biannual limit as unconstitutional.

The Court’s basis for doing so was the basic premise that spending money towards one goal is indeed a form of speech.

“To require one person to contribute at lower levels because he wants to support more candidates or causes is to penalize that individual for ‘robustly exercis(ing)’ his First Amendment rights,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote citing Davis v. Federal Election Commission.

So, to limit contributing to candidates is unconstitutional. Roberts did leave the individual campaign contribution limits alone, saying that the government’s compelling interest was avoiding the appearance of corruption.

As a result, someone can give money to as many campaigns as he or she desires, as long as it does not result in quid-pro-quo corruption or the appearance of such.

Naturally, Roberts’ logic runs counter to the views of many people in these pages. But I cannot fault Chief Justice Roberts’ logic here. All that this case has done was to remove the top cap on how many campaigns a person could contribute to.

To those who would say that this is blatantly corrupt, I would argue that the precedent set by Buckley v. Valeo, which allows for personally funded presidential campaigns, could lead to the exact same “corruption” that many will bemoan in light of the Roberts’ Court steps to lift restrictions on citizens exercising their rights to spend their money to support their causes.

Lifting individual caps on donations will result in much more temptation for officeholders to shut out the interests of their constituents in favor of big donors who could pretty much fund entire campaigns themselves, which would be contrary to the intent of the First Amendment, crowding out free speech elsewhere.

But that does not mean that politics and money will never mix without the Court’s decision.

In fact, by relaxing these restrictions, this could allow citizens to give money to candidates as they see fit, without resorting to PACs or any other organizations.
And I believe this certainly makes for a less toxic landscape.

mjsu@indiana.edu