WASHINGTON - Another major Supreme Court decision on campaign finance could come as early as next week. In McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission, Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon said his First Amendment rights are violated when he cannot give a $2,600 donation to as many parties and candidates for federal office as he pleases. Many groups working to get money out of politics hope the high court rules against McCutcheon.
Others, such as Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the libertarian Cato Institute, favor an end to all restrictions on political donations.
Trevor Burrus is a research fellow with the Cato Center for Constitutional Studies. He explained Cato's position on the issue.
"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. It's not a First Amendment concern that there are people out there who speak louder than other people and have more influence," Burrus said.
He contended that all of the time that politicians must devote to fundraising keeps them from doing their job. Therefore, he would like to see an end to all limits on donations to candidates, parties and political action committees, he said.
Efficient as it might be for a very few donors to fund much larger portions of campaigns, Emma Boorboor, democracy associate, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), said the current overall limit is "plenty" already - in fact, it is almost double the median family income.
"Absent this limit, 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 warned.
Support is building to keep limits in place, she said, from labor, faith, environmental and other groups.
"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," Boorboor said.
These groups also would like to see the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United overturned. That ruling said corporations and unions are "people" under the law, and therefore money they spend on elections is a form of protected free speech.
get more stories like this via email
A new study showed women running for public office in Arizona and around the country often face disadvantages, especially in securing campaign dollars.
The Center for American Women and Politics said historically, women have been unable to match their male counterparts' personal financial resources and do not receive the same noteworthy financial contributions from donors.
Kira Sanbonmatsu, senior scholar at the Center for American Women in Politics, said it affects the number of women elected to office, leading to a lack of representation in politics. She pointed out Arizona is a bit of an exception, as it is one of a few states where women legislators are well established.
"We are seeing that women are running in large numbers for the legislature, and this is, of course, a state where women have done well," Sanbonmatsu observed. "Arizona ranks second nationally for women state legislative representation."
Women are about 50% of representation in the Arizona Legislature, with 29 House seats and 16 Senate seats. This November, Arizona voters will elect nine U.S. House members. They'll also fill one U.S. Senate seat with either Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., or Republican Kari Lake. Data show Gallego has raised almost $29 million and Lake almost $8.5 million.
Sanbonmatsu noted men are more likely to be providing the funds "fueling" state candidates, meaning there is also a lack of female representation among donors. Female candidates are raising a higher portion of funds from small contributors, of $200 or less. The average proportion of small contributions for congressional challengers is highest for Democratic women at 34%, followed by Democratic men at 22% and then by Republican men at 21%.
"We don't often think about giving to politics as an important part of participation," Sanbonmatsu acknowledged. "Women 'outvote' men, but what people don't appreciate as much is that men are 'out-giving' women in terms of funds."
She added it has an effect on whose voices are heard at the state level. She added the Center hopes the data will help "demystify" the campaign-finance space, for the public and for women candidates.
get more stories like this via email
Far removed from the nation's capital, voters in rural states like North Dakota are sharing their thoughts about a plan to hold the U.S. Supreme Court more accountable.
The nation's high court has come under intense scrutiny amid ethics scandals and decisions to overturn a number of long-standing precedents. On Monday, President Joe Biden urged Congress to impose term limits for justices, as well as a binding code of conduct.
Jessica Dryer, a voter in Rolla, agreed changes are needed. She cited her dissatisfaction with the court revoking the constitutional right to an abortion and ruling in favor of Donald Trump in the presidential immunity case.
"I think our Supreme Court in general has just become way too political," Dryer asserted. "The law should be about the people, and not about a political party."
Biden's plan also calls for a constitutional amendment to reverse the recent opinion providing broad presidential immunity from criminal charges tied to official actions. While she welcomes reform efforts, Dryer noted she is torn about term limits, noting there is still potential value from wisdom shared by those with a long service history. Public polling has shown strong support for court reforms but analysts say Biden's plan likely will not be approved by a divided Congress with an election looming.
The White House argued the new ethics code is needed after some justices in the court's conservative wing did not disclose luxury trips paid for by influential donors.
Sharon Larsen, a voter in Williston, said she is not against making changes but would rather see policymakers address their own political issues first and then come together on a bipartisan reform plan.
"The representatives, they certainly aren't helping keep the country stable," Larsen pointed out.
Despite a souring public opinion of the Supreme Court, Larsen still has enough confidence in justices to carry out their constitutional duties. She feels Biden's plan is a power move right before the election. Vice President Kamala Harris, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, expressed support for the proposal.
get more stories like this via email
Census data indicate among voting-age Americans, nearly 25 million Black and brown eligible voters are missing from commonly used registration databases.
A recent study by McKinney Grey Analytics showed people of color are being systematically sidelined by "seemingly inclusive, data-driven digital systems" of voter engagement. Analysts believe it could eliminate thousands of key voters in states such as Ohio.
Prentiss Haney, senior adviser for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, said it often means many eligible voters must re-register or be disenfranchised.
"Over time, they actually fall off the list, and they're not even in the conversation," Haney pointed out. "And what we see in America is that those voters tend to be Black voters, brown voters and people of color. And it's not because those voters are disengaged. It's that they're cynical about the system."
The Ohio Secretary of State eliminated more than 26,000 names from the state's voting list in 2023 for lack of voting activity for the previous four years. Haney noted many of the people on the list have moved and did not receive a notice. The state has a website where voters can check their status and re-register if they have been purged.
The study found given how close recent elections have been, finding and engaging millions of missing Black and Latino voters will "almost certainly determine" the outcome of elections in the future.
Haney added many of the omitted voters are lost in the system.
"When we say a voter is missing, we mean that in the ways that traditional campaigns do outreach, these voters are not on those lists, they are not being targeted," Haney explained. "They are missing from engagement and the outreach that they should get as someone engaging in our democracy."
Deidra Reese, voter engagement director for the group, said it is important for people purged from the rolls to understand their vote counts.
"It certainly can be challenging because there are people who feel like it doesn't matter," Reese acknowledged. "But we try to help them understand why it does matter when they are engaged, and that when they disengage, it can matter more because a smaller number of people are driving the process."
get more stories like this via email