Memo to politicians and ‘reformers’: Read what the Supreme Court says

April 10, 2009   •  By IFS staff
Default Article

Here at CCP we never cease to be amazed that politicians and their supporters who push campaign finance "reforms" have yet to come to grips with what the highest court in the land has said for the past 30-plus years about the proper constitutional grounds for such projects.  Today provided yet another example.

In a story out of post-Blagojevich Illinois, the Associated Press reported late yesterday that now-Governor Pat Quinn "wants campaign finance limits in place for next year’s election, a key component of his effort to clean up state government."   Specifically, the story noted that Governor Quinn "contends limits would level the political playing field."

This brings me to my point.  The Supreme Court time and time again has explicitly held that "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed … to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people."  Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48-49 (1976) (internal quotations omitted).

Indeed, just last summer the High Court reiterated that specific holding while striking down a law, called the "Millionaire’s Amendment," which the government had argued leveled the political playing field by lifting the contribution limits for candidates facing big-spending self-financed opponents.  See Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 128 S. Ct. 2759, 2773 (2008).

Quite simply, the Supreme Court ruled that "[o]ur prior decisions … provide no support for the proposition that," as the government argued, "‘level[ing] electoral opportunities for candidates’ … is a legitimate government objective."  Id.

So there it is — leveling the political playing field is not a permissible government interest under the First Amendment.  And, the sooner politicians and their merry band of "reforming" supporters understand this constitutional fact of life, the sooner the rest of us will get to a place where we don’t have to be bothering the courts constantly to ensure our constitutional rights remain intact.

Of course, a more cynical person might wonder whether Governor Quinn’s real motives may hinge almost entirely on his own self-interest in getting re-elected — rather than his stated goal of leveling the political playing field.

That’s because, as the Associated Press story pointed out, Governor "Quinn had [only] $83,512 in his campaign fund at the end of the year, while Attorney General Lisa Madigan" — a potential opponent — "had almost $3.5 million."

In fact, such a cynical person might think this campaign coffer disparity is the reason why Governor Quinn is not only pushing new contribution limits, but also that "no one who runs [for governor] next year should be able to use the money they’ve already collected," as the Chicago Tribune reported.

I’ll leave what’s actually motivating Governor Quinn’s current interest in new campaign finance restrictions to others, but I do wish he’d read the applicable Supreme Court case law.  After all, if he did, he’d know that the ideas he’s pushing are constitutionally suspect, if not dead on arrival.

IFS staff

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap