The conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court today continued its efforts to keep the Republican Party competitive in national elections. By removing funding caps by individuals, the conservative justices are trying as best they can be help Republican candidates. The bottom line: Rich individuals will be able to give as much money as they please to federal candidates. The richer you are, the more influence and sway you will command.
In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the court voted 5-4 to eliminate caps on individual contributions. The majority said that such caps are a violation of the First Amendment. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, speaking from the bench for the minority, called bullshit on that.
“If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” he said, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”
It’s amazing how conservatives bemoan “activist judges” until they discover a way to use activist judges to their own advantage. As the demographics of the electorate continue to shift, Republicans are faced with the prospect of being a constant minority. After all, the electorate is becoming younger, less white and less affluent — all the things that Republicans traditionally haven’t been. But if the conservatives on the Supreme Court can infuse more Republican money into politics, they know they will have a fighting chance even with demographic shifts.
For example, because of this ruling, Donald Trump can give as much as he chooses to the next Republican presidential nominee. Under previous law, Trump’s contributions to a Republican nominee would have been capped at $2,600 in primary and general election scenarios. For someone with a net worth in the millions, Trump could now play a significant role in a presidential election; and in U.S. Senate races, he could be a kingmaker if he so chooses. Naturally, the conservative Supreme Court already knows this; and it explains exactly why this decision was handed down today.
Surely, our friends at Fox News will spend the day screaming about judicial activism, right?