Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
February 7, 2016

Will McCutcheon Ruling Boost Political Parties?

(Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

Priebus voiced his excitement on the ruling Wednesday. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus could hardly contain his glee during a conference call with reporters shortly after the Supreme Court ruled to strike the aggregate limit on campaign contributions.

“We are excited about the outcome of this case,” exulted Priebus, noting that the RNC bankrolled the constitutional challenge brought by businessman Shaun McCutcheon from beginning to end. In McCutcheon v. FEC, the court ruled 5-4 to overturn the overall limit on what an individual may donate collectively to parties, candidates and PACs in one election cycle, which was capped at $123,200 total.

The ruling “allows us to go to our donors and say: Look instead of being able to give to only nine Senate candidates, you can now give to the 14 that are most in play,” Priebus told reporters. “And you can give to the Senate committee, the congressional committee and the RNC, and you can max out to all three.”

Priebus wasn’t the only party official rejoicing in the wake of the high court’s Wednesday ruling. One Democratic campaign committee operative confided that he was “happy as a pig in shit.” While advocates of campaign finance limits on and off Capitol Hill assailed the ruling as an invitation to corruption and campaign finance abuses, party officials welcomed the decision.

The national party committees have good reason to celebrate, election lawyers say. Under the old rules, an individual contributor could give no more than $74,600 overall to the political party committees in a given election cycle. The “base” limit that caps the size of the contribution — $2,600 on what an individual may give to a candidate per election, for example — remains intact. But in the wake of the ruling, a big donor may give the maximum to all three party committees.

“The biggest winners in this decision are the national party committees,” said Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, of Perkins Coie. The aggregate limits restricted how many party committees a donor could “max out” support for in any given year, he said, “so this will allow them to raise more money from those who want to give to them. This will also help the campaigns, who also face donors who have maxed out under those limits.”

Republicans who hailed the decision as a victory for the First Amendment have largely cast the ruling as a victory for “hard” money that is subject to contribution limits and disclosure. The Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC to lift all limits on independent political spending filled the coffers of super PACs and politically active tax-exempt groups with unrestricted, often undisclosed money. Conservatives argue that party officials should enjoy the same freedoms.

“What the campaign finance laws have done is put party committees in a place where we have the most restriction, the most disclosure, and we can raise the least amount,” said Priebus. “Whereas after all these laws … what’s happened is the groups that can raise the most disclose the least.”

But advocates of political money limits warned that the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling will essentially invite a return to the soft money era that allowed political parties to raise and spend unlimited amounts, before the McCain-Feingold law banned soft money in 2002. Without the aggregate limits, they warn, a single donor could donate $3.5 million at a pop to a joint fundraising committee that would then distribute the money to multiple candidates and party committees. And as in the soft money days, federal officials will be the ones doing the fundraising.

“We’re very concerned about the practical impact of the decision, because it enables one office holder or candidate to solicit enormous checks from an individual donor for joint fundraising committees,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law. Moving forward, progressive activists said the ruling will fuel their movement to push for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling.

“By eliminating aggregate contribution limits, nothing can stop a single millionaire from lining the pockets of an entire state’s congressional delegation, or giving one check to every member of a party in Congress,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., at a Capitol Hill press conference after the ruling. Schumer said his Rules and Administration Committee will hold hearings about the ruling, which he said “just weakens everybody’s faith in government.”

In his opinion for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that congressional remedies, including disclosure and restrictions on transfers between committees, could forestall the types of abuses that critics fear. But Schumer voiced skepticism that disclosure legislation, for one, would get far in this Congress.

“They’ve said all along that we could implement more disclosure,” Schumer said. “We’ve tried. Our Republican colleagues — [Kentucky Republican] Mitch McConnell used to get up and say disclosure is the answer — have, in an act of supreme self-interest, been against disclosure. They know they are benefiting from this far more than we are — not from this decision, but from the overall impact of the money.”

In the short term, the ruling may help Republicans more than Democrats, said Dave Russell, head of the lobbying practice group at Bryan Cave: “I think Republicans benefit more than Democrats because they have more high net-worth donors, generally speaking, and I think those donors are much more motivated in this cycle.”

In the long term, though, the ruling will help both parties hold their own in the face of elections increasingly dominated by outside groups, said Michael Moreland, a law professor at Villanova University.

“In both parties, I think it will temper some extreme voices,” said Moreland, who served as a White House policy adviser under President George W. Bush. “Because it will mean that larger party committees, which by definition need to forward a consensus agenda, will be able to participate more robustly because they have more funding available.”

Niels Lesniewski and Kyle Trygstad contributed to this report.

  • Jenny Mcdonne

    After working for 25 years for somebody else I decided it was time for a change,
    trading was the answer for me because I need to work from home. I say stop
    working for somebody else and make your own money .Check out the website Gold Trading Academy, just Google them you should be able to find them, these guys are really doing it right and make you wonder why everybody isn’t like them.

  • Nick10

    The Supreme Court screwed up. Since when should candidates depend on high-roller’s money to win election. These candidates suck up to the high rollers to get elected and then do anything that they are told to do. What kind of democracy is this. Ordinary voters will have no connection to their Congressman. They don’t count. The high rollers will demand anything they want from their lap dog Congressman. Ordinary voters get stiffed thanks to the Supreme Court.

  • Payton Manning

    In fact, the claim that our customs and traditions have been rationally designed is little but a pernicious pretense conjured up to undermine the learned practices and moral standards upon which liberty and prosperity depend.

  • Mr. Sequel

    Those of the liberty school know that many of the ideas, institutions, and traditions upon which our civilization rests were not designed, but evolved over time.

  • By my own bootstraps

    And it goes around and around? Since 1745 +/- the Rothschild Dynasty has been aggressive in controlling the money ,i.e. The Federal Reserve and many positions on the boards of directors in major corporations, and of all but 4 worldwide countries. The wimps in the Senate and House who let the FED and the President do anything he/she wants including dictatorship. He then appoints the Judges who interput the Constitution as they desire in spite of following our founding documents that have made this Country Great. With the self-centered leadership the United States is surley doomed.

  • Liberalism is Nonsense

    Most run-of-the-mill socialists have been overwhelmed by the mirage of illusions conjured up to obscure the virtues of morality and liberty.

  • Rob_Chapman

    “We are excited about the outcome of this case,” exulted Priebus, noting that the RNC bankrolled the constitutional challenge brought by businessman Shaun McCutcheon from beginning to end. In McCutcheon v. FEC, the court ruled 5-4 to overturn the overall limit on what an individual may donate collectively to parties, candidates and PACs in one election cycle, which was capped at $123,200 total.

    Given this response by the GOP party chairman, can there be any more doubt that SCOTUS has descended into the pit of partisanship and imperilled its integrity as an authoritative interpreter of the constitution?

    Making a ruling that looks better to the political elites than to the Congress is not a message of unbiased public service orientation on the part of SCOTUS.

Sign In

Forgot password?



Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...