Campaign finance: protect or promote?

In the end, it’s all about fairness

Wrapping up our conversation on campaign finance, I’d like to discuss current and upcoming efforts to make further changes to the parameters by which political spending is allowed. In the previous two columns, we covered the initial picture of campaign spending in America and how it was transformed by the recent Citizens United ruling. We attached a face to the primary beneficiaries of the ruling and noted some of the more interesting giving trends and electoral effects caused by the changes. Now, it’s time to discuss recent and possible future efforts to further change the laws under which political giving and spending is guided.

In April, the Supreme Court ruled on the McCutcheon v. FEC case (which I explained in an earlier column, published April 8). In short, a fellow named Shaun McCutcheon paired up with the Republican National Committee in a lawsuit to challenge aggregate giving limits on contributions from individual donors to candidates, parties and political action committees. Note: This does not mean an individual can give an unlimited amount of money to these entities. Prior to this ruling, there was a $123,200 cap on individual giving ($48,600 to individual candidates and $74,600 to parties and PACs). The ruling removed these caps. Limits remain intact for the amount that can be given per entity.

In the eyes of the court, these caps limited the support a donor could display for political parties, PACs and candidates. In the eyes of the FEC, these caps served as a means of fighting corruption.

Other attempts to modify campaign finance laws are currently in the works. At present, there is an effort by U.S. Senate Democrats to overturn the Citizens United decision. Attempts to continue weakening finance laws in states around the nation are also ongoing.

I’ve attempted to educate and explore campaign finance with readers in a very broad sense (due to word count limits!) over these past few columns, and it’s only fitting to include a final word over the issue for now.

Each of us, at some point, should attempt to reconcile our feelings on campaign finance. If you don’t understand the issue, educate yourself on the topic because the future of our democracy is significantly shaped with every legal transition. Whether you find yourself against relaxing campaign finance laws (and perhaps even in favor of stricter laws) or for loosening regulations (in the name of protecting free speech and promoting democracy), you will have arrived at the very crux of the matter — fairness.

As far as I can tell, the left will continue arguing the cerebral mores of money in politics because they have long since enjoyed the spoils of not focusing on money over messaging. And the right will remain in a continual fight to justify lax finance laws due to ongoing efforts to re-dimension perceptions over who (or what) deserves First Amendment protections.

So far, the left has been able to frame the GOP’s actions as a veiled attempt to maximize the use of its greatest asset — the wealth of many of its supporters. But they may ultimately find this narrative falls flat as actions taken to combat the GOP’s efforts fail to surpass the general public’s awareness and understanding of the issue.

Jessica DeLoach Sabin appears on Political Plays on KARK on Friday mornings.

Upcoming Events