The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that federal limits on individual contributions to political candidates and committees are unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 decision on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that current caps on how much money individuals can donate to multiple congressional candidates violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Federal law had allowed individuals to donate a maximum of $2,500 to all federal candidates per election, $5,000 to all political action committees annually and $30,800 to all political parties annually. The Court’s decision ruled these aggregate limits unconstitutional.
Current limits on individual contributions to each candidate, party or PAC remain intact.
Chief Justice John Roberts argued in the majority opinion that aggregate limits infringe on the citizens’ right to have a say in the election of political candidates, regardless of popular opinion.
“If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades–despite the profound offense such spectacles cause–it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition,” Roberts wrote.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the dissenting opinion that removal of the limits would result in legislative corruption.
Breyer cited case records including congressional communications and statements as evidence of “an indisputable link between generous political donations and opportunity after opportunity to make one’s case directly to a Member of Congress.”
State Rep. Chris Taylor, D-Madison, criticized the Court for rendering a verdict she said would disenfranchise voters.
“I’m really disturbed that they keep equating money with speech,” Taylor said. “What does that say about low-income people, that they’re not entitled to speech? It seems to me that the U.S. Supreme Court is affording more speech to the most wealthy.”
Taylor introduced a bill that would publicly finance statewide campaigns through governmental grants as well as a proposition for a statewide referendum to determine public opinion of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., and Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., both released statements criticizing the decision, and said the ruling will allow greater special interest control over federal elections.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a non-profit organization working to promote limited government, lauded the decision in a statement.
WILL filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s state aggregate limits, which are set at the same levels as the federal government’s limits. WILL President Rick Ensberg expressed hope for a quick resolution in light of Tuesday’s decision, according to the statement.
The Center for Responsive Politics, United Wisconsin, Common Cause in Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group released statements criticizing the decision.
The Federal Elections Commission said in a statement it “is considering the impact of the opinion on its existing regulations.”
