On August 28, 2014

Justices and the scramble for cash

By Lee H. Hamilton

Many trends in American politics and government today make me worry about the health of our representative democracy. These include the decline of Congress as a powerful, coequal branch of government, the accumulation of power in the presidency, and the impact of money on the overall political process.

Recently, the Supreme Court’s five-member majority declared that it’s unconstitutional to limit the aggregate amount an individual can give to candidates, political parties, and political action committees. Campaign contributions amplify free speech, these justices maintain, and campaign finance laws violate the First Amendment: any limit on the ability of individuals to contribute to candidates is a restraint of free speech. The only legitimate cause for the government to step in is to fight blatant, obvious corruption; it should not act to limit access and influence by well-to-do donors. The result of this decision will almost certainly increase the impact of money on the political system.

The Supreme Court decision seems to be insensitive to this. Politicians need large sums to run for office, and they are keenly attuned to generous donors. Inevitably, this gives more political influence to the relative handful of wealthy donors who choose to “invest” in politics, and it dampens the influence of voters who don’t have the financial means to command attention.

What can we do?

My preference would be that the President and Congress step in and design rules of campaign finance that would reverse the growing influence of money on our campaigns, but that does not appear likely to happen. Indeed, even as we speak, opponents of campaign finance laws are preparing challenges to the remaining limits on individual contributions and to the easily avoided disclosure laws we already have. I’m certain they’ll get a sympathetic hearing in the Supreme Court.

Paradoxically, this may be our best hope. Because I also believe that Americans are growing tired of the outsized impact that great wealth enjoys in politics, and that a backlash to the Court’s decisions is taking shape.

My sense is that growing numbers of ordinary voters are recognizing that money is a poison in our system. I fervently hope that support for public financing and for muscular disclosure laws will grow with time, because our politics will be more democratic, more honest, and more free if we reduce the impact of money on elections.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

 

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

Addressing affordability: Why fossil fuels are not the answer

January 29, 2025
Dear Editor, Nearly all Vermonters agree we want living in our state to be more affordable. When it comes to energy, continued dependence on high-cost and price-volatile fossil fuels like gasoline, fuel oil, and propane is not a path to affordability. In 2023, $2.2 billion was spent on fossil fuels for transportation and heating in…

Unaffordable Housing I:Rent-fixing

January 29, 2025
Dear Editor, Back in February 2024, Vermont Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a bill, “Preventing Algorithmic Facilitation of Rental Housing Cartels.” What does the bill’s name translate to in plain English? Rent-fixing. In a press release dated Aug. 23, 2024, the U.S. Dept.  of Justice (DOJ) announced it, along with…

Meeting the moment to build more housing

January 29, 2025
By  Lindsay Kurrie Editor’s note: Lindsay Kurrie is the secretary of the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development. This is a pivotal moment in the history of Vermont that will determine our future. It’s imperative we all realize that housing is the foundation of how we will meet this moment to create the momentum…

The great housing development divide

January 22, 2025
The State of Vermont is one of the biggest housing developers in the state. Seven state departments qualify as housing developers, and the University of Vermont is a housing developer. Seven public housing authorities also qualify as housing developers. Add to the list the seven homeownership organizations that are housing developers, and then there are…