Lyle Denniston looks at how the First Amendment remains a high – and perhaps rising – barrier to close regulation of campaign dollars.
THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:
“Chief Justice Roberts has now set the course toward even more campaign finance challenges under the First Amendment and more deregulation….This opinion promises more bad things to come for money in politics, and soon.”
– Richard L. Hasen, law professor at the University of California-Irvine School of Law, in a column Wednesday on the Slate website, discussing the Supreme Court’s new ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
“The Court substitutes for the current two-year overall contribution ceiling of $123,000, the number infinity. If the Court in Citizens United opened a door, today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”
– Excerpt from an oral statement that Justice Stephen G. Breyer made from the bench as the McCutcheon decision was being announced Wednesday.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
Much has happened on the money side of national politics in the last four years, but the Supreme Court made it very clear on Wednesday that the First Amendment remains a high – and perhaps rising – barrier to close regulation of campaign dollars. Four years ago, the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission created a constitutional opportunity that turned into almost uncountable millions flowing into races for Congress and the presidency in the main, but also in local campaigns.
Although Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in the main opinion in the new ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, went to considerable lengths to keep the decision within fairly narrow bounds, it does have potential implications for future campaign finance cases. Given that there are platoons of very energetic legal advocates working to push the First Amendment a good deal further in this field, those implications are sure to be tested….