On January 21, 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United vs FEC case
in a 5-4 decision in favor of Citizens United. The decision effectively eliminated the ban
on corporate spending in elections. It ruled that campaign donations and campaign
spending constitute free speech and that corporations are people (Barnes). The Citizens
United ruling also stipulated that people can contribute up to $5,200 per candidate per
election cycle ($2,600 each for both the primary and the general election) and make
unlimited contributions to single-candidate super PACs on top of that.(Levy 1).
Speech Now vs FEC
Two months after the Citiznes United vs FEC 5-4 SCOTUS decision, a unanimous nine-
judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided in Speech Now vs
FEC that Congress could not place limits on donations given to organizations that make
expenditures independent of and uncoordinated with a candidate´s campaign. This decision
relied heavily on the precedent of the majority opinion in the Citizens United vs FEC case
(¨Campaign Finance in the United States¨).
McCutcheon vs FEC
In a sweeping campaign finance decision, the Supreme Court struck down aggregate
limits in a 5-4 decision on April 2, 2014. An aggregate limit is a cap on how much an
individual can donate every two years. It was $48,600 to federal candidates prior to the
decision. Clarence Thomas provided the deciding fifth vote for overturning the limits but
said that the others should have gone further to strike down all contribution limits. The
had donated close to the legal individual limit to 16 different Republican Congressional
candidates but wanted to donate to more of them. He was prevented from doing so because
of the aggregate limits that had been in place at the time. McCutcheon argued that
aggregate limits are unconstitutional under the First Amendment because they limit free
speech without serving a legitimate government interest (Barnes).
. The Escalation of Super PACS
The combination of both of these decisions resulted in the escalation of ¨independent-
expenditure only¨ PACS, a.k.a. ¨Super PACS¨. Due to the decision in the two
aforementioned upper court cases in 2010, super PACS are now able to legally raise
unlimited money from both individuals and corporations and use those funds to finance
election advertisements, as long as the super PAC does not coordinate with any candidate
(¨Campaign Finance in the U.S.¨). The Citizens United and Speech Now upper court
decisions resulted in a huge influx of cash poured into super PACs, whose independence
analysis of the 2014 Senate races by the Brennan Center for Justice unveiled that spending
for 47 percent of total campaign spending in 10 competitive races in the 2014 midterm
Congressional elections. In contrast,the candidates´ direct spending accounted for 41
percent of all campaign spending (Levy 1). So far in the 2016 Presidential race, campaign
expenditures made by outside groups is four times higher than what it was at the same
juncture in 2012 (MacKenzie).
Criticism of Super PACs and Other Ramifications of the Upper Court Decisions
Critics argue that the legal protections that are in place for corporations are so
extensive that much of this campaign spending undergone by super PACs never have to be
publicly disclosed. And many people question the notion that super PACs are truly
independent of the candidates themselves. This includes Commissioner Ellen Weintraub,
one of the three Democrats on the six-member Federal Election Commission. She stated
¨The premise that the Supreme Court was relying on, that these groups would be truly
independent of the candidates themselves, is very questionable¨. But most advocates of
super PACs say that the Supreme Court made a good-faith effort to induce transparency
and prevent coordination in its Citiznes United ruling. However there is a seeming
contradiction in the Citizens United ruling in regards to the court´s stated goal of
transparency (the justices ruled 8-1 in regards to the portion of Citizens United that upheld
federal disclosure requirements) and the loophole created by it defining corporations as
people protected by the First Amendment that campaigns and PACs cheerfully take
advantage of to avoid full disclosure. Most campaign finance reform proponents do not
view the total amount of money spent by super PACs on elections as the primary problem,
but rather that the majority of such spending is being funded by a small number of very rich
people (Levy 1).
Campaign Finance Reforms Recent Voter Referendums/Proposed Voter Referendums
In places like Maine and Seattle voters have endorsed citizen-funded elections via ballot
referendum in November 2015. National polls indicate that large majorities of Democrats,
Independents, and Republicans want the same reforms for U.S. Congressional elections. It
is also possible that localities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C. will put
their own referendum on the ballot which will ask voters if they want taxpayer-funded
elections. It is also possible that this year California and Washington state will put their
own referendum on the ballot which will ask voters if they support overturning Citizens
United (MacKenzie).
Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling
Sixteen states and over 600 local communities across the U.S. have called for a
constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Polls show that a large majority of
Democrats, Republicans, and independents favor overturning the decision (MacKenzie).
At a Senate hearing in 2014, advocates of campaign finance reform delivered petitions
with three million signatures which proposed a constitutional amendment to reverse the
effects of the Citizens United ruling. According to Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) such a
proposed constitutional amendment is not only supported by conventional clean
governance groups but also by labor, environmental, and other interest groups (Levy 2).
On top of calls to overturn Citizens United, the SEC has been the recipient of more than
1.2 million public comments which advocate a law that requires full disclosure of political
spending (MacKenzie).
Rep. John Sarbanes and Senator Dick Drubin´s Campaign Finance Reform Bills
Representative John Sarbanes (D–Md.) is the lead sponsor of the House´s ¨Government
elections. For candidates who agree not to take any donations over $1,000 and forego
traditional PAC money, they would in exchange receive matching funds for all individual
contributions of less than $200, which would be partially funded by voluntary contributions
Americans to make political contributions. Originally introduced on Februrary 5, 2014,
when it was re-introduced on January 21, 2015 its parameters changed a bit. After being
re-introduced its main stipulations now include a $25 refundable tax credit for small
donations and it would match contributions of $150 or less with limited public funds
at a six-to-one ratio (MacKenzie). It has 157 co-sponsors, 156 Democrats and 1
Republican. It has the unprecedented support of over 50 national organizations. It has the
petition signatures of nearly half million U.S. citizens. It has not gotten out of committee
yet (¨By The People¨).
Sarbanes asserted that studies have found that at least 80 percent of the winning
Congressional candidates from the 2014 electiion cycle would have actually raised more
money through such a small-donor matching system had it been in place. Funding such a
matching program provides another obstacle to its passage in a GOP-controlled Congress,
since its supporters are advocating paying for the bill´s provisions by closing tax loopholes
long advocated by Democrats but largely opposed by most Republicans. Nevertheless,
Rep. Sarbanes stated that he was hopeful that he could persuade some Republicans whose
constituents support campaign finance reform to support the bill. And he thinks that
gradually more and more Republicans will come on board with such reforms as they feel
pressure from their constituents (Levy 2).
A similar bill, the Fair Elections Now Act was reintroduced in the Senate by Senator
Dick Durbin (D-Il) on June 10, 2015. It has 22 co-sponsors, all Democrats. It was referred
Elections Now Act¨ 1).
Petition for Obama to Issue an Executive Order on Federal Contractors
This past December (2015), U.S. PIRG joined a diverse coalition of over 50
organizations to send one million petitions to the White House, which strongly
advocated that the President issue an Executive Order which cracks down on
secret political spending by federal contractors. Under current law, they are not
organizations that make expenditures for the purpose of influencing elections. On
contemplating issuing an executive order that would mandate that all federal contractors
disclose all of their political contributions (MacKenzie).
Right-wing Campaign Finance Reform Proposals
A new group aims to back campaign finance reform from the right. It is led by
John Pudner, and it proposes campaign finance reforms that are fundamentally different
there being too much money in politics, but rather that such money has become too
¨transactional¨ in nature and has fostered cronyism, a.k.a. too many quid pro quo´s. He
proposes encouraging non-rich individuals to get more engaged in the political process via
tax deductions or credits for small donors as well as waiving public disclosure requirements
for small donors. This is because he thinks that such public disclosure requirements
discourages ssome people from making political contributions out of fear of retribution
(Card).
My Campaign Finance Reform Proposals
My campaign finance reform proposals consist of five main components. First,
I would increase the individual contributions limit from $2,700 in the primaries and $2,700
in the general election (for a total of $5,400 per election cycle) to $4,400 in the primaries
and $4,400 in the general election (for a total of $8,800 per election cycle). I would index
this figure to inflation thereafter. This will free up politicians to spend less time on
fundraising. Second, I would implemenent full disclosure requirements for people who
donate $1,000 or more to individual candidates or non-super PACs and/or any money to
super PACs, and/or $10,000 total (including money to party committees). Conversely,
there would be no disclosure requirements for people who donate less than $1,000 to any
candidate or a non-super PAC, do not give any money to super PACs, and who donate less
than $10,000 total in a federal election cycle. Third, I would allow people who donate less
than $1,000 to any individual candidate or non-super PAC, who give no money to super
PACs, and who make political contributions of less than $10,000 total during an election
cycle to deduct 50% of their total political contributions from their taxable income. Fourth,
I would keep the limits to national party committees as they are, and I would adjust it
for inflation. And fifth, I would continue to allow unlimited contributions to super Pacs,
but I would implement full disclosure requirements.
Works Cited
Barnes, Robert. ¨Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Federal Campaign Donations.¨
washingtonpost.com. Washington Post, 02 April 2014. Web. 01 Feb. 2016.
¨Campaign finance in the United States.¨ wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, n.d. Web.
1 Feb. 2016.
Card, Jean. ¨Republicans for the (Regular) People.¨ usnews.com. U.S. News and
World Report, 16 Jan. 2015. Web. 01 Feb. 2016.
¨H.R. 20: Government by the People Act of 2015.¨ govtrack.us. Gov Track Insider, 21 Jan. 2015.
Web. 01 Feb. 2016.
Levy, Gabrielle. ¨How Citizens United Has Changed Politics in 5 Years.¨ usnews.com. U.S. News
and World Report., 21 Jan. 2015. Web. 01 Feb. 2016.
MacKenzie, Chris. ¨ON 6TH ANNIVERSARY OF CITIZENS UNITED, REFORMS MOVING ACROSS
THE COUNTRY.¨ uspirg.org. U.S. PIRG, 21 Jan. 2016. Web. 01 Feb. 2016.
¨S. 1538 – Fair Elections Now Act.¨ congress.gov. CONGRESS.GOV, 10 June 2015. Web.
1 Feb. 2016.
