Good News for the Campaign Finance Reform Movement

By Micah L. Sifry, AlterNet. Posted April 26, 2000.

"To the extent that large contributions are given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance."

With these ringing words, a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives issued a critical decision on Monday that shocked Republican ideologues and warmed the hearts of activists everywhere working for campaign finance reform. The case, Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government PAC, centered on whether Missouri's $1,075 limit on individual contributions to statewide candidates was constitutional. With few exceptions, courts around the country have been throwing out measures with lower contribution limits as infringements on free speech and association, and many reformers had feared that the Supreme Court would agree.

Indeed, as the Nixon v Shrink case made its way to the high court, prominent opponents of campaign finance reform, like Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, had petitioned the court to overturn Missouri's law. McConnell, the George Wallace of our present system of checkbook politics (picture him standing at the doorway to Congress, proudly declaring, "Legalized Bribery now, Legalized Bribery tomorrow, Legalized Bribery forever!") has argued that the First Amendment protects all forms of political contributions and spending. His brief sought the full repeal of contributions limits or, at the least, recognized that they should be adjusted upwards to take account of lost purchasing power due to inflation.

Thus, for the campaign finance reform movement, the Court's 6-3 ruling written by Justice David Souter was doubly sweet to read. Upholding Missouri's contribution limits, the court affirmed what nearly every American believes: that big money plays a pernicious role in our politics and that we have a compelling interest to reduce corruption, including the appearance of corruption that results when candidates are dependent on large private contributions to pay for their campaigns.

In an indirect but clear rebuke to McConnell and his ilk, Souter added: "The dictates of the First Amendment are not mere functions of the Consumer Price Index." Indeed, his opinion makes clear that states may experiment with lower limits on contributions as long as they don't choke off candidates' ability to amass the resources they need to run effective campaigns.

It still remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will revisit the core jurisprudence underlying this week's decision, by taking a case directly challenging its 1976 Buckley v Valeo ruling. In Buckley, the court held that any limits on campaign spending were unconstitutional infringements on free speech, while upholding $1,000 limits for campaign contributions and public financing for presidential campaigns. Justice Souter's opinion relied heavily on the Buckley framework, but legal activists pushing several cases aimed at forcing the question were heartened by signs from several other justices that they were ready to reconsider Buckley.

In the meantime, the Nixon ruling is good news for the growing movement for Clean Money-style reform that is taking root around the country. Starting with Maine in 1996, a total of four states have enacted Clean Money systems for state elections, whereby candidates who voluntarily agree to raise no private money and abide by spending limits can get full public campaign financing. This reform, unlike more incremental measures currently before Congress, breaks candidates' dependence on private contributions altogether. By affirming that states may also restrain the size of contributions to privately-financed candidates, the Court's decision strengthens the chances that candidates will choose to opt into Clean Money systems, secure in the knowledge that they will get sufficient funding to run a competitive race and not be completely outspent by fatcat-financed rivals.

This is particularly helpful to folks in Maine and Arizona, whose new Clean Money systems are in effect for state elections this November. In two rulings in the past three months, a federal judge has upheld all provisions of Maine's new law, including full public financing for candidates who agree to raise no private money. The other ruling reduced contribution limits to $250 for candidates seeking statewide office who want to continue raising private money. While both of those decisions are still being appealed, the Nixon ruling suggests a clear path leading to Clean Money's eventual affirmation by the Supreme Court.

For people everywhere who are sick of how money-drenched our political system has become, this is very good news indeed.

Micah L. Sifry is senior analyst with Public Campaign. For more information on Public Campaign, go to www.publicampaign.org or call 1-888-293-5755.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »