Login | Register

115 online

OpEdNews Op Eds 4/3/2014 at 1:44 AM EDT H1'ed 4/3/14

With McCutcheon Ruling, An Activist Court Opts for Full-On Plutocracy

By John Nichols (Page 1 of 1 pages) 4 comments

John Nichols

Become a Fan
(24 fans)

Source: The Nation

TERRIBLE: Supreme Court Strikes Down Campaign $$$ Limits

Copyrighted Image? DMCA

Any doubts about the determination of an activist United States Supreme Court to rewrite election rules so that the dollar matters more than the vote were removed Wednesday, when McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission was decided in favor of the dollar.

The court that in 2010, with its Citizens United v. FEC decision, cleared the way for corporations to spend as freely as they choose to buy elections has now effectively eliminated the ability of the American people and their elected representatives to establish meaningful limits on direct donations by millionaires and billionaires to campaigns.

The Citizens United ruling, coming after many previous judicial assaults on campaign finance rules and regulations, was a disaster for democracy. But it left in place at least some constraints on the campaign donors. Key among these was a limitation on the ability of a wealthy individual to donate more than a total dollar amount of $123,000 total in each two-year election cycle to political candidates and parties.

With the ruling in the McCutcheon case -- where the court was actively encouraged to intervene on behalf of big-money politics by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky -- a 5-4 court majority (signing on to various opinions) has ruled that caps on the total amount of money an individual donor can give to political candidates, parties and political action committees are unconstitutional. In so doing, says U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, says the court has further tipped the balance of power toward those who did not need any more influence over the affairs of state.

Click Here to Read Whole Article

"It is far too often the case in Washington that powerful corporate interests, the wealthy, and the well-connected get to write the rules," says Baldwin, "and now the Supreme Court has given them more power to rule the ballot box by creating an uneven playing field where big money matters more than the voice of ordinary citizens."

The think-tank Demos says the high court's ruling has "overturned nearly forty years of campaign finance law," which is certainly true. But the court has done much more than that. By going to the next extreme when it comes to questions of money in politics, the justices who make up the court's activist majority have opted for full-on plutocracy -- and it is unimaginable that this week's ruling will be the last assault by the justices who make up that majority upon the underpinnings of democracy.

Those justices have made their political intent entirely clear. Chief Justice John Roberts was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito in a support of an opinion that rejects the notion that limits on the total amount of money that can be given by wealthy donors -- such as the billionaire Koch Brothers or casino mogul Sheldon Adelson -- are needed to prevent corruption. Justice Clarence Thomas went even further, writing an opinion that all limits on political contributions are unconstitutional. The extreme stance of Thomas -- which would overturn the high court's 1976 Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld basic contribution limits, may signal the next frontier for the court.

But the McCutcheon ruling will be more than sufficient for the big-money interests that worried that their ability to buy elections was hindered by what remained of campaign finance law.

"What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in?" asked US Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont. "To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with 'freedom of speech' is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process."

The decision, while not unexpected considering the court's track record, horrified clean-government and campaign-finance reform activists.

"This is truly a decision establishing plutocrat rights. The Supreme Court today holds that the purported right of a few hundred super-rich individuals to spend outrageously large sums on campaign contributions outweighs the national interest in political equality and a government free of corruption," said Rob Weissman, the president of Public Citizen. "In practical terms, the decision means that one individual can write a single check for $5.9 million to be spent by candidates, political parties and political committees. Even after Citizens United , this case is absolutely stunning. It is sure to go down as one of the worst decisions in the history of American jurisprudence."

Public Citizen and other reform groups associated with the Money Out/Voters In movement have organized a national "rapid response" to the McCutcheon ruling. Thousands of Americans are rallying today in cities across the country to protest the decision -- and to call for a constitutional amendment to restore the rights of citizens to organize free and fair elections.

"We, the People insist that our government and our country remain of, by and for the people -- all the people, not just those few who have amassed billions in wealth," says Weissman. "A vibrant movement for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and reclaim our democracy has emerged since the 2010 issuance of that fateful decision. The demonstrations today -- unprecedented as a same-day response to a Supreme Court decision -- are just the latest manifestation of how that movement is now exploding across the country."

Read Next: Ari Berman on the McCutcheon ruling.

1
Rate It | View Ratings

John Nichols Social Media Pages:

John Nichols, a pioneering political blogger, has written the Online Beat since 1999. His posts have been circulated internationally, quoted in numerous books and mentioned in debates on the floor of Congress.

Nichols writes about (more...)

Related Topic(s): Court Decision; Supreme Court SCOTUS; Unconstitutional, Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Authors' Articles

OpEdNews ~~depends upon~~ can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Congress Switchboard: 202-224-3121

To remove advertising from OpEd News, please become a premium member.

"There's no dispute that we now live in a hyper-connected, globalized world--but plenty of argument over the type of globalization that's best for our collective future. In this timely work, Rob Kall makes a persuasive case for 'trickle-up' globalization from below and that the truest, best, and most long-lasting fundamental change always comes from the bottom up. Read this book""then act on it!"

Rory O'Connor, award-winning filmmaker and author of Friends, Followers, and the Future: How Social Media are Changing Politics, Threatening Big Brands, and Killing Traditional Media

Art Instruction for People
At All Skill Levels

Top Content
in the Last 2 Days
(by Page Views)

Go To Top 50 Most Popular

Ad info: click here

Classics of Liberal Thinking

Progressive Radio Links