WASHINGTON - Another major Supreme Court decision on campaign finance could come as early as next week.

In McCutcheon v. the Federal Elections Commission, Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon says his First Amendment rights are violated when he can't give $2,600 donations to as many parties and candidates for federal office as he pleases.

Groups working to get money out of politics hope the high court rules against him. Others, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the libertarian Cato Institute, favor an end to all restrictions on political donations.

"I do not think the danger of protecting the voice of the 'little guy' is something the federal government, or any government, should be involved in," said Trevor Burrus, a research fellow with Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies. "It's not a First Amendment concern that there are people out there who speak louder than other people and have more influence."

Burrus added that all the time politicians have to devote to fundraising keeps them from doing their jobs. He said he'd like to see an end to all limits on donations to candidates, parties and political action committees.

Efficient as it might be for a very few donors to fund much larger portions of campaigns, Emma Boorboor, a democracy associate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said the current overall limit is "plenty" already - it's almost double the median family income.

"Absent this limit," she said, "one wealthy donor would be permitted to contribute more than $3.5 million to a single party's candidates and party committees in one election cycle."

Boorboor said support is building to keep limits in place - from labor, faith, environmental and other groups.

"All groups are seeing how the issue of big money in elections affects the issues they work on," she said. "So, the more that special interests and corporations are able to spend money to influence the outcome of elections, the harder it's going to be to make progress on the issues that people really care about."

These groups also would like to see the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision overturned. In that ruling, the court said corporations and unions are people, and money they spend on elections is a form of protected free speech.


get more stories like this via email

After Elon Musk, a man once worth $327 billion, spent a quarter billion to elect Donald Trump, he was rewarded with unprecedented powers over the federal government.

Brandon Novick, policy coordinator with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says blatant corruption in the United States is not new. And it's legal, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Buckley versus Valeo ruling in 1976.

"That decision was the root one that said that 'money is speech' and that people can infinitely spend in elections. In Citizen's United, basically the court said based on this, we're saying corporations, not just individuals, can infinitely spend in elections," he explained.

To avoid the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, Novick said the nation's highest court clarified that unlimited spending to influence the outcome of an election is OK, so long as the cash is spent independently and not in coordination with a candidate's official campaign.

Billionaires are not just buying power from Republicans. Novick pointed to Reid Hoffman, who spent some $17 million on the Kamala Harris campaign. When Hoffman called for the Federal Trade Commission's chair Lena Kahn to get the boot, Harris refused to commit to keeping Kahn in her post.

"This issue is bipartisan. The establishments of both parties are not working to solve it. But the current Trump administration is the greatest example of blatant billionaire control bought through bribes in campaign spending," Novik said.

Good-government groups have long argued that in American democracy, one citizen - not one dollar - should equal one vote. Novick said there are only two viable pathways to get money out of politics. The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn previous decisions, which is unlikely since many of today's Justices were involved in Citizen's United.

"The only other way to get past this is a constitutional amendment to overturn their decision and get money out of politics. Because if Congress just passes a law, they'll strike it down," he added.


get more stories like this via email

Political maneuvers continue with the pivotal Wisconsin Supreme Court race less than a week away - the latest coming from the White House. In the weeks leading up to the April 1st election, the state has seen partisan-backed campaigns, swirling misinformation and incentives that border on bribes. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reshape state elections - with changes like proof of citizenship requirements - days before Wisconsin voters take to the polls.

Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs with Stand Up America, says it all reflects the climate stoked by the country's leaders.

"So, it's no surprise that they're trying that playbook again in Wisconsin," he explained. "And what it still comes down to is a really basic question. Do we want a MAGA court in Wisconsin? Do we want a Supreme Court bought and paid for by Elon Musk?"

Groups tied to Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who is overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency, have poured about $17 million into backing candidate Brad Schimel, while Susan Crawford's campaign reports a total $24 million in funding, with notable contributions from billionaire George Soros. Overall spending has surpassed all records for judicial races and is expected to reach $100 million.

Most state elections don't garner mass attention, but Edkins says in the battleground swing state, outcomes have national implications.

"Where Wisconsin goes, so goes the country. What's at stake in Wisconsin are ensuring that we have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028," he added.

The high court has become the referee for some of the most hotly debated election rules, narrowly rejecting then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election results. And last year the court reversed gerrymandered maps and restored ballot drop boxes.

Lucy Ripp, communication director with A Better Wisconsin Together, says voters need to cut through the chaos and remember why the election matters.

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court exists to uphold and protect our constitutional rights and freedoms in Wisconsin. And so, it's really important that we pay attention to who we are electing to the court," she said.

Cases about abortion access, the rights of voters with disabilities, noncitizen voting and the legality of drop boxes are just some the high court could see - as well as a lawsuit concerning one of Musk's companies, Tesla.

Gov. Mark Gordon has just a few days left to make final decisions on bills passed during the Wyoming legislative session.

Both fair election advocates and Gordon himself have called some in the pile "boilerplate." The governor signed bills into law this month to prohibit ranked choice voting -- a system not currently used in the state -- and foreign funding for ballot measures, although one slated for the 2026 ballot will be the first in 30 years.

Marissa Carpio, policy director for the Equality State Policy Center, noted the trend could be the result of new control by the Freedom Caucus in Wyoming's House of Representatives.

"What seems like happened is, boilerplate bills from national groups making their way into Wyoming, with issues that we just do not have," Carpio observed. "Maybe just to send a message to those national groups that Wyoming is a place where you can do that."

Gordon this week vetoed Senate File 196, which would have amended the "Second Amendment Protection Act" to include legal ramifications for police officers who "participate in" the enforcement of federal firearms laws. In his three-page veto letter, Gordon wrote the state "shouldn't need to pass boilerplates created in far-flung states that seek to fix problems we haven't seen in Wyoming."

A bill still awaiting Gordon's pen would change qualifications for voter registration to include a 30-day residency requirement and proof of citizenship, which often means a passport or birth certificate.

Carpio pointed out the bill mirrors the federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE Act.

"Our concerns with that bill were that it would impact women, elderly women without documentation or who might have a different name on some of their papers than other papers," Carpio outlined. "It might open up the door for discriminatory practices."

According to the Center for American Progress, 60% of Wyoming citizens do not have a valid passport, and nearly 140,000 women in the state do not have a birth certificate matching their current legal name.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email