Limit power of money in elections

The current session of the U.S. Supreme Court could sweep away what protections remain for the average voters’ access to the political process. If that sounds like hyperbole, consider what’s before the court in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

The nation’s high court on Tuesday heard the arguments in a petition seeking to eliminate limits on how much money can be given in total to federal candidates, as well as to political party committees in a given two-year election cycle. The lead plaintiff is Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman and contributor to numerous campaigns, joined in the lawsuit by the Republican National Committee.

McCutcheon does not challenge the limit on the amount an individual can give to a candidate, only to the aggregate cap for all the candidates combined. He argues that the aggregate limit effectively curbs his free speech because there may be additional candidates he’d like to favor with his direct contribution.

That argument rings hollow, however, especially because of the landmark case the Supreme Court decided three years earlier, a ruling known as Citizens United. The majority opinion in Citizens United said that limits placed on independent political spending — generally accomplished through donations to political action committees that are not controlled by any given candidate — are unconstitutional constraints on free speech.

As was evident in the 2012 election cycle, Citizens United fueled a vast increase in activity by PACs, which used their expanded resources to swarm the airwaves in support of their candidates or political positions.

Eliminating the aggregate cap, in concert with the Citizens United effect, would render any limits meaningless. A wealthy donor could give up to the individual cap for an unlimited number of candidates, and then give unlimited amounts to non-candidate PACs that also support those candidates — and PACs that can be set up in unlimited numbers themselves.

Individuals with copious financial resources could exert unprecedented muscle to elect whole blocs of candidates that support their particular policy agenda. The average voter could reasonably conclude that he or she is powerless to have any voice in the democratic process.

The McCutcheon case directly affects only federal campaigns, but the trend could influence state and local politics as well. If national races can be run by the highest bidders, why not state races? Efforts to level the playing field locally can seem like helpless, outdated gestures.

They are not. All citizens need access to the political process, which usually begins at home. Hawaii’s experiments with expanded publicly financed campaign systems should continue.

There’s nothing wrong with a person spending his or her money to deliver independent political speech through various means, as long as there’s oversight to be sure that speech is, in fact, independent. However, a bright line must be drawn between that activity and the brazen attempt by individuals to control large blocs of votes to form a governing caucus of their liking. That would eviscerate another principle of self-governance: One person, one vote.

The limitations on contributions may be perceived as arbitrary, and one can debate what constitutes a reasonable limit. But there is clearly a public good in drawing the line someplace.

Our nation was founded to replace a monarchy with a popularly elected republic. It hardly seems likely the Founders would have thought replacing a kingdom with kingmakers would have been such a great bargain.