Brandon Krampert
\nIn Motion Staff Writer<\/p>\n
In early April, the crisis heightened within the sphere of money in public elections with the Supreme Court Decision of McCutcheon v. FEC. The ruling struck down a long-standing limit on how much individual donors can give to federal candidates, political parties and political action committees in a two-year election cycle within a particular aggregate limit.<\/p>\n
The decision has often been described as an extension of the Citizens United ruling that defined corporations as people and allowed them to make unlimited contributions known as independent expenditures to shadowy super PACs and non-profit groups that are not coordinated with a candidate\u2019s campaign committee.<\/p>\n
McCutcheon v. FEC started with a wealthy businessman from Alabama by the name of Shaun McCutcheon who, in the 2012 elections, wrote 27 checks of an un-ironically $1,776 to right-leaning congressional candidates, but could not write another because of the aggregate limit on candidate contributions. In turn, he took the case to court for a supposed violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.<\/p>\n
\u201cToday, the U.S. Supreme Court took a stand in favor of our Constitutional Freedom of speech as codified in our First Amendment that enables us to support candidates for public office who share our views,\u201d said McCutcheon in light of the ruling.<\/p>\n
House Speaker John Boehner said a similar statement in a press conference. But freedom of speech for who?<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s take the example of election contribution patterns in the 2012 elections two years after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. According to Demos, a public policy organization, the top 32 super PAC donors gave an average of $9.9 million each and nearly 60 percent of super PAC funding came from 159 donors contributing at least $1 million. Also, 93 percent of contributions raised by super PACs were sums of at least $10,000 from 3,318 which is about .0011 percent of the U.S. population.<\/p>\n
Other studies show that some of the wealthiest donors include individuals with strong lobbying interests such as Stephen Bechtel Jr. with nuclear issues, Paul Foster with Texas oil, former Goldman Sachs managing director Muneer Satter and a number of hedge fund managers.<\/p>\n
Whenever it comes to contributions to federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees, the group Public Campaign conducted a study on a group of 1,219 donors and found the group contributed at least $105,300 to the various groups mentioned. The demographics are just as interesting, a considerable portion of them were found to be part of the top 1 percent income bracket, had roots in the financial sector, and dominantly white males.<\/p>\n
Generally, does the mass of people have the income to compete financially in elections? The Tampa Bay Times project Politifact looked into this very subject and concluded that about 1.2 million people gave at least $200 in 2012, which is 0.4 percent of the population.<\/p>\n
In the 2012 election, there seemed to be a pattern between campaign spending and congressional wins. 83.9 percent of house candidates and 66.7 percent of senate candidates who outspent their adversaries won their elections.<\/p>\n
So what this new decision really means is that it further empowers a hand full of wealthy Americans with even more options to exert their influence in federal elections. In the upcoming 2014 elections, individuals can make contributions up to $5.9 million on candidates, political parties and political action committees.<\/p>\n
This isn\u2019t necessarily a partisan issue although the Republican National Committee was a plaintiff in the case and the party leaders are all for it.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m concerned that today\u2019s ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by the majority of the of the court to dismantle entirely the long-standing structure of campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special interests on American politics,\u201d said Senator John McCain in a press release.<\/p>\n
Walter Jones who is also a Republican congressman from North Carolina is an advocate of campaign finance reform co-sponsored a bill in 2011 to overturn Citizens United and more recently he proposed a bill with Democrat congressional colleague Jim Yarmuth from Kentucky on the development of public financing of congressional elections.<\/p>\n
Arizona along with a number of other states has passed legislation to do that on the state level. In fact, former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano was the first governor to win an election without private money in U.S. history.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s the direction that the political process should go in, public financing of public elections to where a wealthy minority can\u2019t buy elections, an atmosphere where politicians don\u2019t have to succumb to bribery by the rich who have their own interests in mind.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Brandon Krampert In Motion Staff Writer In early April, the crisis heightened within the sphere of money in public elections with the Supreme Court Decision of McCutcheon v. FEC. The ruling struck down a long-standing limit on how much individual donors can give to federal candidates, political parties and political Continue reading With campaign donations it\u2019s one dollar, one vote, not one person, one vote<\/span>