Wednesday, March 22, 2023
Hawai'i Free Press

Current Articles | Archives

Thursday, April 3, 2014
Q&A on Supreme Court's New Campaign Finance Decision
By Heritage Foundation @ 2:42 PM :: 3783 Views :: First Amendment

Q&A on Supreme Court's New Campaign Finance Decision

by Amy Payne, Heritage Foundation, April 3, 2014

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that it is unconstitutional to limit the total amount of money someone can give to political candidates.

The limit remains on the amount you can give to each individual candidate ($2,600 per election), but now, you can give to an unlimited number of candidates.

We asked Heritage legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky to break down this decision and what it means.

The Foundry: So now you can give the maximum donation to as many candidates as you like. Does this apply only to candidates for federal office?

Hans von Spakovsky: The Supreme Court’s ruling applied only to federal candidates, but the constitutional principle on which the Court based its ruling will allow individuals to challenge any state laws that have similar restrictions for state elections.

What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling?

Giving money to a candidate is an exercise of an individual’s right to participate in the electoral process through both political expression and political association—you are exercising your First Amendment right to express your support for particular candidates and the ideology they represent, as well as to associate with them politically.

While the Court still believes it is acceptable for Congress to restrict how much money an individual can contribute to a specific candidate in order to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption, it held that it is unconstitutional to restrict how much you can give in total to different candidates. As the Court said, “the government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”

So speech and money are the same thing in the political arena? Is that what our Founders envisioned?

Yes, when you restrict a candidate’s ability to raise or spend money, you are restricting his or her ability to speak. It takes money to advertise on television and radio; to send out political brochures that illustrate your ideas and public policy views; to speak, write, or engage in activity that tells people what you believe and why they should vote for you. So speech and money are inextricably bound together in the First Amendment context. Many of the Founders who ran for office in the early days of the Republic understood very well that it takes money to run a campaign and get your voice heard by the public.

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin said, “The decision gives rich people more power to influence campaigns.” Do “rich people” in fact have more power now?

The First Amendment protects individuals no matter how rich or poor they are. In fact, the vast majority of contributions raised by federal candidates and political parties are small donations, well below the individual limit. Some individuals may be financially able to contribute more overall, but the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee a level playing field—just the equal opportunity to speak, associate, and engage in political activity.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the decision “only serves to widen the floodgates of special interest spending.” Isn’t that what people said after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision?

That is a foolish claim by Rep. Pelosi. How are political donations made by individual Americans to candidates they like “special interest spending”? She apparently doesn’t like having liberty-loving conservatives like Sean McCutcheon, a business owner in Alabama who was the plaintiff in this week’s case, engaging in political activity that threatens her power.

The 2010 Citizens United decision threw out the restrictions on independent political speech by advocacy organizations and corporations, including nonprofits like the National Rifle Association. One of the reasons that Rep. Pelosi didn’t like that decision is that America had the most competitive congressional elections since the 1930s in November 2010, after that decision came out. However, even after the Citizens United decision, political expenditures from these types of groups still represent just a fraction of overall campaign dollars.

The biggest source of money for political campaigns continues to be smaller donations—Americans who are giving less than $100 to the candidates they support. So for all the talk about the nefarious “money in politics,” supporting candidates is actually something many Americans do.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Quick Hits:


TEXT "follow HawaiiFreePress" to 40404

Register to Vote


808 Silent Majority

ACA Signups Hawaii

Alliance Defending Freedom

Aloha Pregnancy Care Center

American Council of Trustees and Alumni


Antonio Gramsci Reading List

A Place for Women in Waipio

Astronomy Hawaii

Back da Blue Hawaii

Ballotpedia Hawaii

Better Hawaii

Broken Trust

Build More Hawaiian Homes Working Group

Christian Homeschoolers of Hawaii

Cliff Slater's Second Opinion

DVids Hawaii


Fix Oahu!

Frontline: The Fixers

Genetic Literacy Project

Grassroot Institute

Hawaii Aquarium Fish Report

Hawaii Aviation Preservation Society

Hawaii Catholic TV

Hawaii Christian Coalition

Hawaii Cigar Association

Hawaii Coalition Against Legalized Gambling

Hawaii ConCon Info

Hawaii Credit Union Watch

Hawaii Crop Improvement Association

Hawaii Debt Clock

Hawaii Defense Foundation

Hawaii Family Forum

Hawaii Farmers and Ranchers United

Hawaii Farmer's Daughter

Hawaii Federalist Society

Hawaii Federation of Republican Women

Hawaii Future Project

Hawaii Gathering of Eagles

Hawaii History Blog

Hawaii Homeschool Association

Hawaii Jihadi Trial

Hawaii Legal News

Hawaii Legal Short-Term Rental Alliance

Hawaii Matters

Hawaii's Partnership for Appropriate & Compassionate Care

Hawaii Public Charter School Network

Hawaii Rifle Association

Hawaii Shippers Council

Hawaii Smokers Alliance

Hawaii State Data Lab

Hawaii Together



Hiram Fong Papers

Homeschool Legal Defense Hawaii

Honolulu Navy League

Honolulu Traffic

House Minority Blog

Imua TMT

Inouye-Kwock, NYT 1992

Inside the Nature Conservancy

Inverse Condemnation

Investigative Project on Terrorism

July 4 in Hawaii

Kakaako Cares

Keep Hawaii's Heroes

Land and Power in Hawaii

Legislative Committee Analysis Tool

Lessons in Firearm Education

Lingle Years

Malulani Foundation

Managed Care Matters -- Hawaii

Malama Pregnancy Center of Maui

Military Home Educators' Network Oahu

Missile Defense Advocacy

MIS Veterans Hawaii

NAMI Hawaii

National Christian Foundation Hawaii

National Parents Org Hawaii

NFIB Hawaii News

No GMO Means No Aloha

Not Dead Yet, Hawaii

NRA-ILA Hawaii

Oahu Alternative Transport


OHA Lies

Opt Out Today

Patients Rights Council Hawaii

PEACE Hawaii

People vs Machine

Pritchett Cartoons

Pro-GMO Hawaii


Rental by Owner Awareness Assn

ReRoute the Rail

Research Institute for Hawaii USA

Rick Hamada Show

RJ Rummel

Robotics Organizing Committee

Save Dillingham Airfield

School Choice in Hawaii

Sink the Jones Act

Statehood for Guam

Talking Tax

Tax Foundation of Hawaii

The Real Hanabusa

Time Out Honolulu

Trustee Akina KWO Columns

UCC Truths

US Tax Foundation Hawaii Info

VAREP Honolulu

West Maui Taxpayers Association

What Natalie Thinks

Whole Life Hawaii