The SCOTUS eliminated giving limits for donors during a single election season. Image: Shutterstock |
The controversial decision is a win for wealthy
donors—conservative or liberal—because they no longer have to scale back
overall giving. Proponents for the elimination of the limit claimed that the
Federal Election Campaign Act’s limit violated individuals’ First Amendment
rights.
The split court decided in their favor: “We conclude that
the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental
interest in this court accepted as legitimate [in a 1976 ruling]… They instead
intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to express the most
fundamental First Amendment activities,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in
representation of the SCOTUS’s conservative majority.
The dissenting half of the court worry that eliminating the
limit is a decision that leaves “huge loopholes in the law; and that
undermines, perhaps devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform.”
One thing the decision does ensure is that political
candidates must have wealthy donors to back them—which has been true for a long
time. With the limit eliminated, influence could become even more of a
privilege of the rich than it already is, though the individual candidate cap
remaining intact should help with that.
Post a Comment