Shortly after the McCutcheon decision, I sent my senators feedback about how disappointed I was in the decision, and urged them to support measures to reverse it.
I didn’t think the responses I got would be so blatantly off-base. But then, I do live in Tennessee - a deep-red state in the South. This is Tea Party Country. We were one of the few states to choose Rick Santorum in the 2012 GOP primary.
Senator Lamar Alexander, who’s up for re-election this fall, just responded. Hit the jump for the full email.
Sen. Alexander writes:
Dear Robert,
Thanks very much for getting in touch with me and for letting me know what’s on your mind regarding campaign finance reform.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) created limits on the amount of money an individual can donate to candidates, parties and political action committees(PACs) per election cycle. FECA sets up two types of limits, base and aggregate limits. The “base limit” sets the maximum amount an individual can donate to a particular candidate or political committee. The “aggregate limit” places a limit on the total amount an individual is permitted to donate to all candidates and committees. As Chief Justice John Roberts explains, “under (this law), it is perfectly fine to contribute $5,200 to nine candidates but somehow corrupt to give the same amount to a tenth.”
On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which reversed some of its prior rulings on campaign finance laws. In its decision the Court ruled that the aggregate limit is unconstitutional because it violates an individual’s First Amendment right to donate to as many federal candidates, parties, or PACs as he or she would like. However, the maximum base limit set by law to individual candidates was not changed by the Court’s decision.
Decades of campaign finance “reforms” have left our electoral process with fewer candidates, longer campaigns, more wealthy candidates spending their own money, and more influence by Washington elites and the news media. Only the average American voter’s speech has been restricted. The Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision is an important step in reversing that bias. We should be focused on taking limits off individual contributions and spending, and pushing for maximum disclosure along with stiff fines for failure to disclose.
I appreciate your taking the time to let me know where you stand, and I’ll be sure to keep your comments in mind as campaign finance laws are discussed and debated here in Washington and in Tennessee.
Sincerely,
Lamar
Highlighting is mine, of course. I would comment further, but I think his notion that
McCutcheon will lift restrictions on “the average American voter” speaks for itself.
Well, okay - I'll add one little data point. I make about $32K a year as an independent contractor. That breaks down to a little over $15 an hour, plus some bonuses, and puts me a bit above the median individual income here in Chattanooga, the fourth-largest city in the state. Just who are these “average” voters for whom $5,200 per candidate is a problematic cap?