![Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance
Decision
Susan Walsh/Associated Press
The Lede chronicled much of the reaction to the Supreme Court?s campaign finance decision on
Wednesday that struck down limits on federal campaign contributions. As our colleague Adam
Liptak reports, the ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and most likely
increase the role money plays in American politics.
5:41 P.M. Former Federal Election Commissioner Defends the Ruling
Bradley A. Smith, the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, a law professor at West
Virginia University, and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, wrote in Time
magazine late Wednesday that the Supreme Court ruling was a victory for liberty over the tyranny of
regulation:
As the Court noted, some may find the existence of money in politics ?repugnant,? but ?[i]f the First
Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades?it surely protects political
campaign speech.? And if a government wants to regulate such speech ? it better have a very good
reason.
The mission of the Center for Competitive Politics is to fight the regulation of political speech.
2:52 P.M. Herman Cain Predicts A Liberal ?Hissy Fit?
Herman Cain, the Republican former presidential candidate and current pundit, reacted to all the
reaction:
#SCOTUS strikes down limits on overall campaign donations ? cue the left-wing hissy fit?](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/13968931405342e5d4d37c3-140407125223-phpapp01/85/Reaction-to-the-Supreme-Court-s-Campaign-Finance-Decision-1-320.jpg)
Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Decision
- 1. Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Campaign Finance Decision Susan Walsh/Associated Press The Lede chronicled much of the reaction to the Supreme Court?s campaign finance decision on Wednesday that struck down limits on federal campaign contributions. As our colleague Adam Liptak reports, the ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and most likely increase the role money plays in American politics. 5:41 P.M. Former Federal Election Commissioner Defends the Ruling Bradley A. Smith, the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, a law professor at West Virginia University, and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, wrote in Time magazine late Wednesday that the Supreme Court ruling was a victory for liberty over the tyranny of regulation: As the Court noted, some may find the existence of money in politics ?repugnant,? but ?[i]f the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades?it surely protects political campaign speech.? And if a government wants to regulate such speech ? it better have a very good reason. The mission of the Center for Competitive Politics is to fight the regulation of political speech. 2:52 P.M. Herman Cain Predicts A Liberal ?Hissy Fit? Herman Cain, the Republican former presidential candidate and current pundit, reacted to all the reaction: #SCOTUS strikes down limits on overall campaign donations ? cue the left-wing hissy fit?
- 2. Kochpocalypse Now!!!! http://t.co/JftDjmpI3K ? Herman Cain (@THEHermanCain) 2 Apr 14 1:41 P.M. White House ?Disappointed? The White House is ?disappointed by the decision,? a spokesman, Josh Earnest, told reporters on Air Force One as President Obama traveled to Michigan to promote an increase in the federal minimum wage. Mr. Earnest cited Justice Breyer?s dissenting opinion, saying that the decision ?eviscerates? campaign finance law. ?We are still reviewing the details of the ruling,? he said. ? Michael D. Shear 1:17 P.M. Bernie Sanders: ?Absurd? Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, shared his reaction on Twitter. To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with ?freedom of speech? is totally absurd. #McCutcheon http://t.co/aFbGEjXAAn ? Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) 2 Apr 14 12:50 P.M. Campaign Legal Center Warns of ?Pay-to-Play? System The Supreme Court?s decision kept in place limits on donations to individual candidates. But critics said its lifting of the cap on overall donations to candidates during an election cycle would give big- money donors an easy way to work around the individual limits. ?The decision provides a road map for the wholesale evasion of the base contribution limits,? the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said in a statement. ?Candidates will solicit million-dollar checks, contributors will write them and the pay-to-play system in Washington will
- 3. only become more direct.? The full statement is here. ? David S. Joachim 12:32 P.M. Democratic Lawmakers: Decision Will Corrupt Campaigns Democratic lawmakers said the decision would corrupt campaigns and give too much power to wealthy donors. ?The Supreme Court has chosen to pour even more money into our process and our politics,? Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, said. She urged Congress to pass legislation introduced in February that would, among other things, offer tax breaks and matching funds to small-money donors to increase their influence. W/ #McCutcheon, SCOTUS has chosen to pour even more money into our process & politics. We must restore fairness & pass the #ByThePeople Act. ? Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) 2 Apr 14 Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, who has introduced a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision, said, ?Make no mistake: this decision is a setback for our freedoms.? Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, wrote on his Twitter account: ?Awful decision ? $ shouldn?t buy politics!? Awful decision ? $ shouldn?t buy politics! #AmericaIncorporated MT @jonresnickAP: SCOTUS strikes down overall campaign contributions limits. ? Sen. Robert Menendez (@SenatorMenendez) 2 Apr 14 Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he would hold hearings on ?the impact of these alarming Supreme Court decisions that have eviscerated our campaign finance laws.? ? David S. Joachim
- 4. 12:38 P.M. The Times?s Campaign Finance Reporter Summed It up Our colleague Nick Confessore succinctly captured the import of the Supreme Court?s decision when it came out, tweeting: Boom: Supreme Court strikes down aggregate contribution limits: http://t.co/SmzpjHcCIZ ? Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) 2 Apr 14 12:11 P.M. John McCain ?Disappointed? by the Decision At least one leading Republican came out against the decision. Senator John McCain of Arizona, a co-sponsor of a campaign finance law passed in 2002 that restricted corporate donations to campaigns and was largely struck down by the Citizens United ruling, said in a written statement: ?I was disappointed by the Supreme Court?s decision today. While I have advocated for increasing the aggregate limits on individual contributions to candidates and party committees, I am concerned that today?s ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by a majority of the court to dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special interests on American politics.? ?I predict that as a result of recent court decisions, there will be scandals involving corrupt public officials and unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions that will force the system to be reformed once again.? ? David S. Joachim 12:01 P.M. Republican Leaders Applaud Decision Republican leaders in Congress applauded the decision, calling it a victory for free speech. ?The Supreme Court has once again reminded Congress that Americans have a constitutional First Amendment right to speak and associate with political candidates and parties of their choice,? Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader who is fighting for re-election in a tight race in Kentucky, said in a written statement. Mr. McConnell said that the court recognized the ?right of the individual, and not the prerogative of Congress, to determine how many candidates and parties to support.?
- 5. Speaker John A. Boehner, meeting with reporters as the ruling was being issued, was asked whether the decision would give wealthy donors ?outsize influence on campaigns.? ?No,? he replied. ?What I think this means is that freedom of speech is being upheld. You all have the freedom to write what you want to write. Donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give.? He added, ?I?m all for freedom.? ? David S. Joachim 11:57 A.M. Justice Breyer Fears a ?Floodgate? The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, was a sequel or sorts to Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions, as Adam Liptak reported. But the earlier ruling did nothing to affect the other main form of campaign finance regulation: caps on direct contributions to candidates and political parties. On Wednesday, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in his dissenting opinion, ?If the court in Citizens United opened a door, today?s decision we fear will open a floodgate.? ? David S. Joachim 11:24 A.M. Republicans: ?An Important First Step? The Republican National Committee, which brought the case along with Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, released a statement that said: ?Today?s court decision in McCutcheon v F.E.C. is an important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust, transparent political discourse. I am proud that the R.N.C. led the way in bringing this case and pleased that the court agreed that limits on how many candidates or committees a person may support unconstitutionally burden core First Amendment political activities. When free speech is allowed to flourish, our democracy is stronger.? ? David S. Joachim