NEW HAVEN, Conn. - 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.

While the case concerns limits in federal election campaigns, it is being closely watched by Ken Krayeske, administrator at the New Haven Democracy Fund.

"What are the ripple effects of McCutcheon?" he asked. "We're concerned that if the Supreme Court ends limits, then is the limit of $1,000 on a mayoral campaign in Connecticut going to fall by the wayside as well?"

Krayeske said so few people can afford to give the maximum $2,600 in both a primary and general election that he believes removing the limit will only increase the imbalance in the election process. He said it also would make it more difficult for candidates who accept public funding to keep pace with their challengers.

Trevor Burrus, a fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, said his group sides with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who favors ending 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," he said. "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 the amount of time politicians have to devote to fundraising keeps them from doing their jobs.

But Emma Boorboor, a democracy associate for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, 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 should be viewed as people and the money they spend on elections as a form of protected free speech.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio's U.S. Senate race between the incumbent, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Republican Bernie Moreno has become one of the most expensive in American history, now totaling more than $400 million.

At the heart of the high-stakes election is the role of cryptocurrency. Its backers' financial influence has ignited debate over regulation and transparency. Both sides have been vocal on what it could mean, not only for Ohioans but for the future of cryptocurrency regulation across the country.

Mark Hays, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform and the advocacy group Demand Progress, shared his skepticism about the money flowing from the crypto sector.

"The money that's being spent is an effort to punish those politicians for trying to maintain strong regulatory standards," Hays explained.

Moreno has gained substantial backing from the Defend American Jobs super PAC, a group aligned with pro-crypto interests. This PAC has launched a $41 million ad campaign promoting him. Hays argued it is all part of a broader push for lenient crypto regulations in Congress, which Brown strongly opposes.

At a campaign stop in Columbus on Monday, Moreno defended the support from crypto backers, stating, "The reason they supported me is because they agree with me, not because I agree with them." He also addressed questions about his personal connection to cryptocurrency.

"I sold my Bitcoin, so I didn't want to have any nonsense from liberal reporters saying that I'm pro-crypto because of financial interest," Moreno asserted. "And the crypto community understands that this election is an existential threat to their existence here in America."

Brown, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, has been a key figure in Congress advocating for strong regulatory oversight of the crypto industry. He has not shied away from addressing what he sees as significant risks posed by digital assets.

"The fraud, the scams and the outright theft; you can lose big in crypto's huge price swings," Brown pointed out. "They didn't tell you about the high fees pocketed by the crypto companies. Without regulation, stablecoins can endanger our economy, our payment system, our hard-earned money."

With control of a Senate seat in play and unprecedented levels of funding, Ohio voters are seeing firsthand how digital currency backers can shape political discourse.

Election Day is inching closer and the battleground state of Wisconsin will see more visits from the two main party presidential campaigns.

It was also the setting of a forum featuring a popular historian linking past events to the current debate over democracy.

Doris Kearns Goodwin, the renowned presidential historian, was the featured guest earlier this week at a discussion in suburban Milwaukee hosted by the United to Preserve initiative. When asked about present-day divisions and how they compare with similar turmoil in U.S. history, Goodwin pointed to the Industrial Revolution, noting it had the same effect on society as today's tech boom has.

"Globalization and the tech revolution have shaken up the economy, much as the Industrial Revolution did at the turn of the 20th century," Goodwin explained. "Think of what we went through then: It was the first time, really, that there was a gap between the rich and the poor, the first time, really, that people were from moving from the farms into the cities in record numbers."

She pointed out it fueled resentment among smaller communities, paving the way for an urban/rural divide seen today. Goodwin noted it took leaders such as former President Teddy Roosevelt, who had dealt with adversity in his own life, to channel that reflection and moderate his tone in a way that resonated with Americans from all kinds of backgrounds.

Goodwin said down the road, Lyndon Johnson had a heart attack while serving as a U.S. Senator. She said recovering from the medical scare inspired him to balance the quest for power with the need to serve the people.

"All of a sudden, one day, he just woke up and he said, 'Get me shaved, I'm ready to be back.' And he (a staffer) said, 'Well, what happened?' And he (Johnson) said, 'Well, I was lying here thinking what if I died now, what would I be remembered for? I have accumulated a lot of power, I've accumulated wealth, but have I really done something to make a difference in people's lives?'" Goodwin recounted.

Goodwin emphasized Johnson then became laser focused on advancing civil rights policy, even when the odds were stacked against him while serving as president. She noted it does not mean there weren't hard lessons learned along the way, with Johnson known for sometimes yelling at colleagues in humiliating fashion and regretting it the next day. Conversely, she pointed out Abraham Lincoln would write out a letter in anger but would set it aside and never have it delivered to the recipient, with it serving as a "cooling off" tool.


get more stories like this via email

As cryptocurrency becomes more prevalent, it's also making its way into the political arena. With millions of dollars being funneled into campaigns across the country, including here in Ohio, questions are arising about the impact this new wave of funding will have on elections - and, more importantly, what it means for voters.

Mark Hays, a senior policy analyst in financial technology with Americans for Financial Reform, said it's important for Ohioans and everyone across the country to be aware of the money's origination.

"There's a small group of wealthy individuals tied to the crypto industry pouring unprecedented amounts of money into campaign spending to dictate a particular policy outcome that will help them to continue to profit from scammy and predatory practices," he cautioned.

Hays highlighted concerns that the influx of crypto money could sway political decisions to favor industry players. The FBI recently reported more than $4 billion lost in crypto-related scams in 2023 alone. Meanwhile, proponents of cryptocurrency argue it is a valuable tool for economic growth, suggesting that it could help modernize financial systems. However, critics warn that the current push for less regulation might leave consumers vulnerable to fraud and financial instability.

On the other side of the conversation, supporters of cryptocurrency see potential benefits, but some in Ohio are voicing concerns about the influence of large crypto donors on local elections.

Melissa Cropper, Ohio Federation of Teachers president, offered another perspective.

"Why are the cryptocurrency people pouring money into this election? Are they pouring money into the election because they want to make sure that the business stays unregulated? And if that's the case, that's not what we want here in Ohio," she questioned.

As more money from the crypto industry pours into Ohio's elections, the debate over how to regulate this relatively new technology intensifies. Proponents point to the potential for job creation and financial innovation, while critics worry that Ohioans may end up paying the price if regulations are weakened. With $174 million already spent nationally on the 2024 elections by the crypto industry, Ohio remains a key battleground in this debate.