We the People

Supreme Court eliminates individual campaign contribution limit

by Morgan Pratt

 

Donation limits on corporate contributions to campaigns and political parties were retracted nationally last week with the Supreme Court case ruling of the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

 

The court ruled in a 5-4 vote to eliminate the individual aggregate limit on the overall amount one could donate to candidates; the limit in 2014 was $123,200. Regardless, the maximum amount a congressional candidate can receive from an individual has stayed at $2,600 dollars per election. This ruling would allow the wealthy to donate to multiple candidates.

 

Maryann Martindale, the executive director for the Alliance for a Better Utah, said the recent McCutcheon court case began with a conservative businessman from Alabama, Sean McCutcheon. She said he was frustrated with the $123,000 limit an individual can donate for a single race overall. As a result, he took it to court.

 

“He felt that it was his right, especially in light of the Citizens United decision and the other decisions which has come down the Supreme Court that he should not have that limit,” Martindale said.

 

Keith Hughes, an online content creator for YouTube and a politics high school teacher, said the McCutcheon ruling was a erosion of the McCain v. Feingold court case in 2000. He said the ruling in began to regulate campaign finances.

 

Hughes said the Citizens United Supreme Court decision in 2010 was a deregulation of the McCain v. Feingold ruling. He said the recent McCutcheon case is just another disintegration of the ruling in 2000.

 

Martindale said the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling changed the campaign finance regulations by allowing corporate influence and PACs.

 

“Even with this limit, people still had a lot of avenues to get money into candidates hands like through PACs,” Martindale said. “This is just making it even more clear that as an individual I can donate directly to as many candidates as I want.”

 

Matt Lyon, the executive director for the Utah Democratic Party, said the court ruling will not affect Utah as much as it will the rest of the nation when it comes to state races.

 

“There may be an impact on the congressional candidates and the United States senate candidates,” Lyon said. “But for the political parties, because local Utah law is so relaxed and lacks real restrictions, it does not affect our day to day effort.”

 

Julian Babbitt, the executive director for the Utah Republican Party, said regardless of party this is an important step for restoring the voice of candidates and party committees.

 

“It is a step in the right direction for those who support the robust transparent political discourse and that this will help increase one’s ability to exercise the right to free speech in terms of giving to candidates and campaigns of their choice,” Babbitt said.

 

Martingale said the new regulations surrounding campaign contributions need to have a level of transparency.

 

“Otherwise, it just becomes a dark money game and then it secrecy and power and pay-to-play and that is not where we should be headed,” Martingale said.

 

Hughes said he understands the issue from both sides.

 

“On one side, there is at least the illusion that there is corruption is going on,” Hughes said. “In a sense, one person is giving $3 or $4 million to get a senator elected. In a sense, there is a quid pro quo going on. That person wants something for that money whether it is a piece of legislation or its an influence of the agenda or its the access.”

 

He said, on the other side it is a freedom of speech issue.

 

“These are peoples’ money that they earned and the court says they can spend it as they see fit,” Hughes said.