Today the U.S. Supreme Court divided along now familiar lines in deciding the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. The court’s Conservative wing (Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts) teamed with frequent swing-voter Anthony Kennedy to win the day.
The decision is yet another blow to campaign finance reform. One decision among many that the Conservative wing has pushed through since 2007, McCutcheon eliminates the annual total limit of $123,400 that individuals can make in campaign contributions to federal politicians. For now, it leaves in place the $2,600 limit that an individual can donate to any one candidate. But considering that more than 450 members of Congress are up for election every other year, the new effective total limit on a single person’s contributions is well over $1,000,000. Double that if they’re willing to play both sides, which is not unusual.
Many people are up in arms over the decision as a matter of policy concern, and I’m sympathetic on that count. Like many of them, I believe our republic runs the risk of being degraded by ever more more private money flowing into our elections. And don’t even get me started on lobbying.
But policy concerns aside, what strikes me when reading the majority decision is the basic illogic at work.
The decision’s opening paragraph acknowledges that:
“Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against
corruption or the appearance of corruption.” [italics added]
In other words, the court recognizes that it’s not just corruption that must be checked, but also the mere appearance of it. Why? Because the appearance of corruption, regardless of its actual depths, undermines the public’s faith in public institutions. That can be very damaging, and even fatal to a republic.
Yet in the very next breath, the majority opinion asserts that Congress:
“may not, however, regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics.”
What the Conservative wing is unwilling to admit, then, is that a high volume of money in and 
of itself can create “the appearance of corruption.”
This is, of course, ludicrous.
Poll after poll has shown that a clear majority of Americans believe that increasing the flow of money into elections leads to corruption.
For example, a 2012 poll by NYU Law School found that:
- 69% of Americans, including 74% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats, believe allowing unlimited donations to Super PACs will lead to corruption. Only 15% disagreed.
- 73% of Americans, including 75% of Republicans and 78% of Democrats, believe that limits on such spending would lead to less corruption. Only 14% disagreed.
- 65% of Americans, including 67% Republicans and 69% of Democrats, trust government less because they believe big donors have more influence than regular voters.
- 26% of Americans are actually less likely to vote because they believe big donors have so much more influence over elected officials than do average Americans.
It couldn’t be any clearer. Each time the court strikes down limits on campaign contributions, Americans assume corruption will be the result. That decisions like the one we see today, and the money that inevitable flows from them, shake the public’s faith in our democratic electoral system. And though it does not mean to, the United States Supreme Court has nevertheless countenanced the appearance of corruption, .
This is the result of the flawed and mangled logic used to justify the majority decision in McCutcheon.