Supreme Court campaign decision slammed by Minnesota lawmakers
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's latest campaign finance decision has few friends in Minnesota's congressional delegation.
"People who are in a position to donate six figures can now donate seven," quipped 5th District DFL Rep. Keith Ellison.
The court's decision in McCutcheon vs. FEC ends a long policy of restricting the the aggregate amount donors can give to candidates and party committees in an election cycle. Before being struck down, individual donors were limited to $48,600 to all candidates seeking election and $74,000 to party committees.
The Supreme Court did not strike down limits on donations to a particular candidate -- currently $2,600 by individuals per candidate per election or $5,000 by political action committees.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
But in an era when deep-pocketed donors can already contribute tens of millions of dollars to super PACs and outside groups that are formally unaffiliated with a candidate, how much do those limits matter?
"It makes the playing field a little less level, a little more uneven," said DFL Sen. Al Franken, who's long sought a constitutional amendment to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision that was the precursor to McCutcheon.
Franken argued the decision means more money is likely to flow to candidates rather than outside groups, in part because they are allowed to purchase TV ads at the lowest possible rates.
A conservative group that does not have to disclose its donors is currently running ads criticizing Franken's support for stronger campaign finance rules.
Democrats have lately taken to singling out major conservative donors, including the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, for their sway over the GOP.
"Granting the wealthiest donors the limitless opportunity to dominate our electoral process and drown out all other voices is corrosive and destructive to our democracy," said 4th District DFL Rep. Betty McCollum in statement.
Wednesday's decision was a victory for Republicans; the GOP was involved in the litigation and has argued in favor of looser rules for years on the grounds that the current campaign finance laws unduly restrict free speech.
"Let me be clear for all those who would criticize the decision: It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party -- it just respects the Constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support,” said GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a statement.
But the court's decision may be viewed by tea party supporters as yet another sign that the GOP's wealthy establishment wing will try to use its financial advantages to clobber insurgent voices.
Sixth District Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann said she had not had time to read the decision but believed the nation's current campaign finance laws are a "disaster" in need of a total rewrite.
"[The laws] empower a few billionaires in the United States to essentially run these elections," said Bachmann.
Until she announced her decision to leave Congress at the end of her current term, Bachmann had been one of the GOP's most prolific fundraisers -- but from a grassroots donor base that averages less than $50 a donor.
"My opinion has always been that the greatest locus of power needs to be closest to the American people," said Bachmann.
Still, Ellison said the court's decision was all the more reason for Democrats to focus on mobilizing their supporters and pointed to the 2012 election, when casino magnate Sheldon Adelson donated an estimated $90 million to various GOP presidential campaigns.
"More money in politics doesn't always win," said Ellison. "Sheldon Adelson put a lot of money on a lot of candidates and got beat."