It seems Republicans are getting desperate — gerrymandering and restricting voting isn’t enough to rig elections for them. The NY Times headline story (gift link) shown above has the details.
Here’s the essence of the GOP’s latest ploy:
Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court dramatically remade the campaign finance landscape in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a landmark case in which the justices struck down legal limits on independent political spending by corporations and unions, allowing a flood of new money to enter politics.
The court has been chipping away at campaign finance restrictions ever since. The case the justices will consider on Tuesday involves one of the remaining limits: how much money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates.
The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, was brought by national Republican leaders, who argue that the limits violate the First Amendment, restricting their ability to reach and influence voters.
Depending on its scope, such a decision could swing the pendulum of power back toward the official political parties and away from super PACs. It could also allow parties to spend huge sums from big donors directly on candidates, potentially expanding the influence of big money compared with small-dollar contributions. Democrats in recent years have done better than Republicans at winning smaller donations.
Where it would make a difference:
As the article explains it, one big effect would be to lower the costs of tv advertising for campaigns. Federal law requires broadcasters to offer candidates lower rates; Super PACs have to pay much more. Funneling money directly through party channels coordinating with campaigns would get around that.
Democrats have been able to leverage small donations in big numbers to outspend Republicans. If the Supreme Court allows party committees to coordinate spending with candidates, the committees will be able to take in larger political donations than candidates can, and will be able to buy ads at lower rates. Advantage GOP — their big donors, and Big Money in general.
A likely additional effect would be greater ability by the establishments of both parties to pressure candidates to toe their line. This could become a serious problem for Democratic candidates seeking to refresh and reform the party, something which is already problematic.
A ruling is expected by July.
When headline writers at The NY Times have apparently become unable to normalize what the Supreme Court is likely to do, stuff is getting real.
