September, 16 2013, 02:14pm EDT
![Public Citizen](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012683/origin.png)
Upcoming Case Tests Whether U.S. Supreme Court Will Allow Increased Flow of Corrupting Money in Federal Elections
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission Poses Challenge to Limits on Direct Political Donations
WASHINGTON
Note: On July 25, U.S. Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and David Price (D-N.C.) submitted an amicus curiae, or "friend-of-the-court," brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of the Federal Election Commission in this case. Public Citizen Attorney Scott Nelson and former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman are leading their team of attorneys.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), a case whose impact on our political system could be as damaging as Citizens United, is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court this fall, and it could dramatically boost the corrupting influence of the wealthy over candidates in federal elections.
In the case, the justices will consider whether to eliminate the limit on the total sum that people can give directly to candidates and political parties in a single election. The current overall limit for an individual making direct contributions to parties, political action committees (PACs) and federal candidates is $123,200 per two-year election cycle, but a win for the challengers in McCutcheon could allow total contributions above $7 million.
The case is being heard just a few years after the highly controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the court gave corporations the green light to spend unlimited sums to influence elections. That decision, the biggest game-changer to date in a long-term effort by corporate interests to kill campaign finance laws, led to unprecedented spending by the wealthy and corporations in the 2010 midterm congressional elections and last year's presidential elections. It also sparked a robust movement, led in part by Public Citizen, for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision. Depending on how the justices rule, McCutcheon could be the next game-changer.
The McCutcheon suit was brought by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee (RNC). In challenging the current law, McCutcheon says he made direct contributions to 16 federal candidates in recent elections and wanted to give the same amounts to 12 more. Those additional contributions would have put him over the aggregate limit for candidate contributions in an election cycle, which in 2012 was $46,200 to federal candidates, made up of individual contributions of no more than $2,600 (or $5,200 in a two-year election cycle comprising a primary and general election). He also says he wanted to give $25,000 to each of the three Republican national political committees, which would have put him over the $70,800 limit then in effect for party committees.
McCutcheon, together with the RNC, is claiming that these aggregate limitations violate the First Amendment and that if contributions at the current base limits of $2,600 per election for individual candidates and $32,400 a year per party committee are not enough to corrupt politicians (a standard by which the Supreme Court has judged such cases), then a larger number of contributions in those amounts also would not lead to corruption. The RNC says it would receive additional contributions from people like McCutcheon if it were not for the aggregate limits.
The challengers' argument ignores the close relationship among the political parties and their candidates, and the way they work hand-in-hand to ask for and receive donations from large contributors. Already, candidates and parties routinely form joint fundraising committees to solicit the largest contributions permitted by the aggregate limits, which are then divided up among the candidates and party committees making the ask. Without the aggregate limits, officeholders, candidates and party officials could solicit multimillion-dollar donations, to be divided up among the parties' various national and state committees and candidates, and used for their common benefit.
"Citizens United is bad enough in allowing big-money interests to spend large sums in support of candidates," said Public Citizen attorney Scott Nelson, who is representing two members of Congress as amici curiae in the case. "But at least those spenders must maintain an arm's length distance from the candidates and parties. If McCutcheon and the RNC prevail, political parties and their candidates would be able to ask for, and receive, huge donations directly from contributors, maximizing the opportunities for corrupt bargains to be struck."
Legal precedent squarely on the side of the FEC
While both this case and the 2010 Citizens United ruling involve election-related spending, the key legal principles governing the cases are very different. Citizens United addressed independent political expenditures--money spent for things like broadcast ads and fliers. These expenditures must be made without the direct cooperation or consultation of a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee or a political party. McCutcheon deals with directcontributions to candidates, political parties and PACs--that is, checks written to the candidate's campaign.
This distinction is critical to the First Amendment question the case poses. The Supreme Court has found that political expenditures are a form of free speech. But, the court said in its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, because "the transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor," limits on contributions "entail only a marginal restriction" on speech.
"The good news here is that the court's precedents are very much on our side," Nelson said. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly said, even in Citizens United itself, that it views limits on political contributions much more favorably than limits on political spending."
In their amicus brief, Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and David Price (D-N.C.) argue that the fundamental question in the case is whether the allowance of larger individual contributions would create the reality or appearance of corruption--the prevention of which is a compelling government interest--and they show that previous Supreme Court decisions say the answer is yes:
In every case in which this Court has considered federal contribution limits, it has upheld those limits because they serve an interest the Court has always deemed sufficiently important to justify campaign finance regulation: preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption. Very large political contributions create both the risk that officeholders and potential officeholders will be tempted to forsake their public duties and the opportunity for corrupt bargains. They thus threaten to foster both actual corruption and, what may be just as damaging, its appearance. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 26-27; accordCitizensUnited, 558 U.S. at 345, 356-357.
The brief also notes that seven Supreme Court justices, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the Citizens United decision, voted to uphold the federal ban on soliciting large contributions in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission:
As this Court recognized in McConnell, the prospect of candidates soliciting and receiving multi-million dollar checks from donors creates both the risk of corruption and the appearance of corruption. To be sure, these funds might not all be expended directly on the candidate's own campaign. But this Court has not required a direct financial benefit to the candidate's own campaign committee to recognize the potential for corruption or its appearance when a contributor makes a large donation at a candidate's request. It is enough that the contribution benefits the party and its candidates, directly satisfying the request. Thus, in McConnell, seven Justices held that solicitation of very large contributions for national parties presented corruption concerns regardless of how those contributions were ultimately used.
As Public Citizen's brief concludes: "Permitting the parties and their candidates to solicit and receive contributions of millions of dollars from individual donors would again foster the appearance that our officeholders and our government are for sale. ... This [c]ourt must not countenance, let alone bring about, that result."
Breaking down the numbers
The impact of a decision for the challengers would be extreme. The Federal Election Campaign Act's longstanding aggregate limits currently impose a cap of $123,200--more than double median household income--on the amounts individuals can contribute directly to federal candidates, political parties and PACs during a two-year election cycle. If the Supreme Court were to strike down the aggregate donation limit in McCutcheon, a single wealthy individual could give up to $3.6 million (70 times the median household income) to one party and all its federal candidates per election cycle. He or she could theoretically give another $3.6 million to the other party and give $5,000 each to an unlimited number of (PACs).
The $123,200 aggregate donation limit is a combination of a $48,600 limit on contributions to federal candidates and a $74,600 limit on gifts to all PACs and parties.
An individual now may give up to $48,600 to federal candidates during the upcoming election cycle, but may give only up to $5,200 per election cycle ($2,600 during the primary and $2,600 during the general election) each to an individual federal candidate. Similarly, within the $74,600 overall limit on contributions to parties and PACs, an individual can give no more than $5,000 per year to any one PAC, $10,000 per year to any one state party committee, and $32,400 per year to any national party committee (of which each of the major parties has three: its national committee and its congressional and senatorial campaign committees). Most of these limits are adjusted for inflation between election cycles. A victory for McCutcheon would maintain the current limits on how much an individual may give to each candidate, party and PAC, but it would remove aggregate limits on how many of those donations one can make.
Without the limits, an individual could give $32,400 to each national party committee each year. For a person who gave only to one party, that would be $97,200 a year (between the party's national committee and its congressional and senatorial committees), or $194,400 over two years, compared to the maximum of $74,600 that you could give to all party committees and PACs in a two-year period now. The same contributor could, on top of that, give $10,000 to each of the party's state party committees each year, for another million dollars over a two-year period, and $5,200 to each of the party's federal candidates, another $2,438,800, for a grand total of over $3.6 million. The same contributor could also give the same amount to the other party, plus $5,000 each to an unlimited number of PACs.
The public opposes the corrupting influence of corporations and the wealthy in politics
A relatively small number of people use contributions to maximize their leverage over elected officials. All told, around 1,700 donors gave the maximum permitted amount to committees of the major parties in the 2012 election cycle, accounting for more than $100 million in contributions. Almost 600 reached the aggregate limit on contributions to federal candidates.
Many more people oppose the corrupting influence of large donors on our government. A February 2013 YouGov poll found 44 percent of Americans think the 2012 election cycle's aggregate limit of $46,200--raised to $48,600 this cycle--to federal candidates was already too high. Eighteen percent think it was just right, and just 12 percent think there should be no limit.
A 2012 Brennan Center for Justice survey found that 69 percent of respondents disapproved of the Citizens United decision, making it one of the most unpopular Supreme Court decisions in history.
Before the Citizens United decision, the idea of money equaling speech was largely supported by public opinion, by a margin of 56-37 percent, according to 2009 polling by Gallup and the First Amendment Center. Once Americans got to see the effects big money had on politics, there was a huge shift in public opinion. Polling done by YouGov in 2013 shows that Americans now overwhelmingly reject the notion that money is equivalent to speech, by a margin of 55 to 23 percent.
Accordingly, public confidence in the Supreme Court has dropped significantly, with a recent Rasmussen poll finding only 28 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the court.
Both the court's precedents and a proper concern for the court's legacy and legitimacy point to only one outcome: a decision upholding the aggregate contribution limits as a bulwark against corruption.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
UnitedHealth Reports $7.9 Billion in Q2 Profits After Protesters Arrested
"Health insurance coverage has expanded in America, but we are finding it is private health insurance corporations themselves that are often the largest barrier for people," said one organizer.
Jul 16, 2024
A day after 150 people assembled outside the headquarters of UnitedHealth Group to demand the for-profit health insurance giant stop its "systemic" denial of coverage, the company announced Tuesday the huge profits it raked in over the second quarter of 2024: $7.9 billion.
The sum, said one organizer, exemplifies why the demonstrators were willing to risk arrest to speak out against the firm's practices.
"UnitedHealth Group's $7.9 billion quarterly profit announcement is the result of a business model built on pocketing premiums and billions of dollars in public funds, then profiting by refusing to authorize or pay for care," said Aija Nemer-Aanerud, Health Care for All campaign director for People's Action Institute. "People should not have to turn to public petitions or direct actions to get UnitedHealthcare to pay for the care they need to live. That makes no sense, unless you're a shareholder or executive eyeing your next big luxury purchase."
Eleven people were detained by police at Monday's demonstration, where they blocked the street in front of UnitedHealth's headquarters in Minnetonka, Minnesota, displaying signs that read, "United (Denies) Healthcare" and "The Price Is Wrong."
The demonstration was organized by the Care Over Cost campaign at People's Action Institute, which has worked to help people across the country overturn care denials by UnitedHealth and other for-profit insurance giants.
Gina Morin of Auburn, Maine spoke at the event about having her mental health treatment denied by her Medicare Advantage plan administered by UnitedHealth.
"Two years ago my therapist was denied payment for seven of my mental health sessions she provided," she said. "I tried to pay her even though I'm on a limited income and she wouldn't take the money. If my provider, in her professional opinion, believed I needed those therapy sessions, who is UnitedHealth to deny coverage?"
As Common Dreams reported last month, UnitedHealth was named in a letter written by 52 members of the Democratic caucus in Congress as one of the healthcare companies that use artificial intelligence to decide via algorithm that coverage should be provided or denied to patients who have Medicare Advantage plans, which are billed as offering coverage that traditional Medicare doesn't include.
ProPublicareported last year on Christopher Naughton, a man with ulcerative colitis whose treatment cost $2 million per year, leading UnitedHealth to flag his account as "high dollar." The company contracted with a doctor to review Naughton's case, and the doctor found the treatment for symptoms including arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, and blood clots was "not medically necessary."
After suing the company, Naughton's family found UnitedHealth had lied about what Naughton's personal physician told the contractor in order to come to their conclusion and end coverage.
"Health insurance coverage has expanded in America, but we are finding it is private health insurance corporations themselves that are often the largest barrier for people to receive the care they and their doctor agree they need," Nemer-Aanerud toldCBS News Monday.
In April, People's Action sent a letter to UnitedHealth noting that its CEO was paid nearly $10 million in 2022 while the CEO of its parent company "extracted over $90 million in executive and board pay for himself" over four years.
The company took $22.4 billion in profits in 2023 and sent $14.8 billion to shareholders through stock buybacks and dividends—yet continues to deny necessary healthcare coverage to its members.
The group called on UnitedHealth to:
- Stop denying claims and overturn any existing denials for treatments recommended by medical professionals;
- Immediately cease the practice of using artificial intelligence and algorithms to initiate claims denials in bulk; and
- Execute a publicly shared audit and reimburse federal and state governments for the public money diverted by claim and prior-authorization denials within Medicaid (Managed Care), and Medicare (Medicare Advantage), among other demands.
"We will never stop fighting for a world where everyone gets the care they need, no matter their race, gender, or background," said People's Action. "When greedy corporations deny our care, we organize."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Power Play of the Highest Order': DNC Plot to Ram Through Biden Nomination Sparks Fury
"Behind the scenes, people at the Biden campaign and DNC are working to put in the fix," warned one Biden delegate from Maryland.
Jul 16, 2024
The Democratic National Committee is barreling ahead with plans to cement U.S. President Joe Biden's spot at the top of the party's November ticket weeks before next month's convention in Chicago, an effort that has sparked outrage among congressional Democrats and delegates who are worried about the incumbent's ability to defeat GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who has said a "major course correction is needed" to avert disaster in November, has been circulating a letter to colleagues expressing concern about the DNC's plans, which were detailed Tuesday by Axios and The New York Times. At least three House Democrats thus far have said they're considering signing the letter, according to Axios.
Huffman told the Times in an interview that "to try to squelch debate and jam this through is a power play of the highest order."
"That kind of heavy-handed move is not going to go over well with a lot of people," Huffman added.
The letter, published in full by Axios, states that "there is no legal justification" for the DNC's plan for a "virtual roll call" among DNC delegates to formally confirm Biden as the party's presidential nominee before the end of the month.
The Democratic convention is set to begin on August 19.
Without offering specifics on the timeline, DNC Chairman Jamie Harrison confirmed the plans for a virtual roll call in a statement to Axios, even in the face of vocal concerns from congressional Democrats, grassroots activists, and some DNC delegates.
"We look forward to nominating Joe Biden through a virtual roll call and celebrating with fanfare together in Chicago in August alongside the 99% of delegates who are supporting the Biden-Harris ticket," Harrison said.
The Timesexplained Tuesday that "the process will effectively begin when the rules committee of the Democratic National Convention meets on a video call at 11:00 am on Friday, followed by another party group on Sunday."
"All of the more than 4,000 delegates are expected to begin casting their ballots as soon as Monday, a process that is likely to take about a week," the Times continued. "After that, the committee is expected to quickly hold the roll call, a tradition that typically occurs on the convention floor but is being held virtually this year."
"They are using non-existent rationalizations to quick-strike Biden into place."
One Biden delegate from Maryland, Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, warned in a recent email to fellow state delegates that "behind the scenes, people at the Biden campaign and DNC are working to put in the fix."
"Put simply, they are trying to shut down the process earlier. We can't allow it," Mizrahi wrote in the email, which was obtained by Axios. "I am asking you to ask the DNC to stop pushing for an early vote."
The DNC initially instituted plans for a virtual roll call following the enactment of an Ohio law that could have prevented the Democratic presidential candidate from being on the state's November ballot if the nominee wasn't chosen by August 7.
But Ohio has since pushed back the deadline to September, rendering that justification moot.
The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote on social media Tuesday morning that he has heard from a source who said the DNC is still moving ahead with a virtual roll call because of supposed "ballot deadlines in Montana and California."
"This is nonsense, there are no such deadlines," Dayen wrote. "They are using non-existent rationalizations to quick-strike Biden into place."
Huffman's letter warns that "proceeding with the 'virtual roll call' in the absence of a valid legal rationale will be rightly perceived as a purely political maneuver, which we believe would be counterproductive and undermine party unity and cohesion."
"Moreover, it would contradict what President Biden himself has repeatedly said to members of Congress in recent days, telling us that anyone who 'wants to challenge his nomination should do so 'at the convention,'" the letter continues. "We respectfully but emphatically request that you cancel any plans for an accelerated 'virtual roll call' and further refrain from any extraordinary procedures that could be perceived as curtailing legitimate debate or attempting to force an early resolution of the party nomination."
Aaron Regunberg, a progressive organizer who has vocally demanded that Biden step aside, argued Tuesday that "even if you're all in for Biden, you should oppose" the DNC's plan for a pre-convention virtual roll call.
"If Biden's our nominee, he'll desperately need Dem unity [and] enthusiasm," Regunberg wrote on social media. "Moves like this are tailor-made to engender mistrust and make it much, much harder for Dems—volunteers, donors, voters, all of us—to come together."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats, Progressives Call On Menendez to Resign After Bribery Conviction
"He must resign today or be immediately expelled," said one watchdog leader.
Jul 16, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez faced fresh pressure to resign on Tuesday after his federal corruption trial ended with a jury finding him guilty on all 16 counts for accepting bribes from three businessmen and acting as a foreign agent for the Egyptian government.
"In light of this guilty verdict, Sen. Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said of the New Jersey Democrat, who had pleaded not guilty.
Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said in a statement that the verdict "demonstrates that the senator broke the law, violated the trust of his constituents, and betrayed his oath of office. It also shows that in America, everyone—no matter how powerful—is accountable to our laws."
Murphy continued:
Sen. Menendez received a fair trial and due process of law as he was entitled to under our Constitution. I want to thank all the public servants who play crucial roles in our criminal justice system, including our law enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors, and judges. Their hard work ensured that these brazen crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and our nation is grateful for their service.
I reiterate my call for Sen. Menendez to resign immediately after being found guilty of endangering national security and the integrity of our criminal justice system. If he refuses to vacate his office, I call on the U.S. Senate to vote to expel him. In the event of a vacancy, I will exercise my duty to make a temporary appointment to ensure the people of New Jersey have the representation they deserve.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder, a former federal corruption prosecutor, similarly released a statement calling on the Senate to act if Menendez refuses to leave voluntarily.
"After years of ducking accountability for corruption, Sen. Bob Menendez has finally been convicted by a jury of his peers," he said. "There is no room in the Senate for a convicted felon, especially not one convicted of taking bribes. He must resign today or be immediately expelled."
Common Cause president and CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said that "after a guilty verdict from a jury of his peers who heard all the facts of the case, Sen. Menendez has broken the trust of New Jersey voters. When we see our leaders sell their influence, we lose faith that democracy is worth participating and believing in."
"It is foundational to our representative democracy that our leaders in Washington put their own personal interests aside in favor of the public interest," she added. "Rather than serve the voters, Sen. Menendez sold them out for his own personal profit. He must resign."
Menendez was initially indicted in September for allegedly taking bribes in the form of "cash, gold, payments toward a home mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury vehicle, and other things of value." He swiftly stepped down as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but remained in the chamber, despite calls for his resignation as the charges mounted.
The verdict was delivered at a federal courthouse in New York City on Tuesday. The Associated Pressreported that "as the verdict was read in court, Menendez, 70, looked toward the jury at times as he appeared to mark a document in front of him. Afterward, he sat resting his chin against his closed hands, elbows on the table."
Menendez did not testify at the trial—the conclusion of which comes as he is running for another Senate term as an Independent against Democratic Congressman Andy Kim and Curtis Bashaw, a Republican real estate developer.
"I'm deeply disappointed by the jury's decision," Menendez told reporters outside the courthouse, adding that he plans to appeal. "I have never violated my public oath. I've never been anything but a patriot of my country and for my country."
The senator previously faced unrelated corruption charges in 2017, but that trial ended with a deadlocked jury. In this case, his wife, Nadine Menendez, was also charged. She has pleaded not guilty. Her trial was postponed so she could recover from breast cancer surgery.
This post has been updated with comment from Common Cause.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular