The Best Advertising Money Can't Buy -- And The Kind That Could Get You Sent To Jail
Bradley A. Smith writes in the WSJ about Oprah's campaign contribution to Barack Obama -- her endorsement -- was worth more than a million votes in the 2008 primary, "more than the difference between then-Sen. Obama and his main rival, Hillary Clinton":
Chances are you've never heard of Shaun McCutcheon, who hopes to have a fraction of Oprah's influence on elections. Mr. McCutcheon faces one problem: The federal government could jail him for five years if he implements his plan. So he has taken his case to court, and on Oct. 8 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in McCutcheon v. FEC. This case could be as important to campaign-finance law as Citizens United v. FEC, which in 2010 restored the rights of corporations and unions to engage in political speech.Mr. McCutcheon owns a company that designs and builds electrical systems for projects such as clean coal-liquefaction. His financial success has allowed the longtime Republican activist to use his money to support GOP candidates.
Under federal law, however, Mr. McCutcheon is limited to a maximum contribution of $2,600 to a candidate in any election. The ostensible reason for this limit is to prevent candidates from being "corrupted" by large campaign contributions. The law also limits him to contributing a total of $48,600 to candidates in any two-year election cycle, meaning that he can only contribute the $2,600 maximum in 18 races. With at least 60 U.S. House races and 15 Senate races expected to be competitive in 2014, Mr. McCutcheon can give the maximum contribution in fewer than one-quarter of those races.
Mr. McCutcheon is willing to live with the $2,600 limit on contributions to any one candidate. But his case presents the Supreme Court with a simple question: If his $2,600 contribution would not "corrupt" the first 18 candidates he supports, why would it "corrupt" the 19th and 20th?
Many small-change supporters of a candidate can band together to support that candidate with bigger bucks.
Instead of trying to curtail speech, people should be thinking of creative ways to increase theirs.
I have other questions, one of which is: why can activists in California promote a Senate race in New York?
Radwaste at September 30, 2013 2:13 AM
" why can activists in California promote a Senate race in New York?"
Because unfortunately that NY Senator will have just as much power over their lives as the CA senator.
There are many forms that support for a candidate take place. The campaign rules and reforms only really cover the one form: direct cash donation. Other ways: Super Pacs, union labor (having union members work for free on a campaign), celebrity endorsements (how much is Oprah saying she likes a book worth, how much is her saying she likes a candidate worth), campaign dinners with others as the extra guests.
Joe J at September 30, 2013 6:58 AM
"why can activists in California promote a Senate race in New York?"
I know! It's like they're all part of the same country or something, a bunch of states all united. Ridiculous!
And this business of a liberal being allowed to endorse a candidate - wth, people? Everyone knows that elections are best run by corporate-funded PACs with huge piles of money. That's how you guarantee an open and free election.
I just don't understand how these individual citizens think they can actually participate in the process.
Buncha hippies.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimer at September 30, 2013 10:15 AM
Everyone knows that elections are best run by union-funded PACs with huge piles of money.
FIFY. You're welcome.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 30, 2013 11:33 AM
What really should happen is the repeal of the 17th Amendment and make senators selected by the state houses and not by popular vote.
With a 12 year term limit and the state able to, fairly easily, recall a senator that is out of line you wouldn't be seeing this crud with Obamacare.
Jim P. at September 30, 2013 12:16 PM
Thanks, Darth! Unions truly are the top 1% of wealth holders and run our corporations, have the largest PACs, and have a stranglehold on the GOP!
Remember when our grandparents had to fight the government, the cops, and the unions in the streets? Man, those were the bad old days.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 30, 2013 1:34 PM
Gog you're the greatest, seriously.
GOP is all about welfare just not to gross poor people. Yuck.
On a side note for us Californians Diane Feinstein has been caught with her hands in the cookie jar again. I guess her hubby was selling post offices for cheap to their 'friends'.
People who run our government and corporations just make my heart flutter with warmth.
Ppen at September 30, 2013 11:09 PM
"I know! It's like they're all part of the same country or something, a bunch of states all united. Ridiculous!"
Evidently you have forgotten that a state's Senator is supposed to represent that state. Would you feel the same way about money sent to a candidate for the House, or for a Governor?
Radwaste at October 1, 2013 2:11 AM
Unions truly [...] have a stranglehold on the GOP!
The party big labor has a stranglehold on is the one that actually runs things in this country.
dee nile at October 1, 2013 5:17 AM
Leave a comment