Rich Lowry: The First Amendment is such a nuisance

  • By Rich Lowry
  • Sunday, April 6, 2014 4:52pm
  • Opinion

Every time the Supreme Court rules in favor of the First Amendment in a campaign-finance case, the left recoils in disgust.

The court’s 5-4 decision in McCutcheon v. FEC is the latest occasion for the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. The court struck down the limit on the aggregate amount a donor can give to candidates and political-party committees, ruling it incompatible with First Amendment protections for political expression.

The left pronounced itself outraged. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has $11 million in his campaign treasury despite being a senator for life, called the decision “another step on the road to ruination.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has enough of a fundraising surplus that he bought jewelry for his donors from his granddaughter, resorted to a thunderous non sequitur in denouncing the decision: “All it does is take away people’s rights because, as you know, the Koch brothers are trying to buy America.”

The First Amendment is for strippers, flag burners, pornographers, funeral protesters and neo-Nazis, but not for people trying to give money to political parties or candidates.

In his decision for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts noted that contributing to a candidate is political participation just like volunteering for a campaign or urging others to vote. “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some,” Roberts writes, “but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects.”

The decision in McCutcheon should have been a slam-dunk. Campaign-finance law limits how much a single donor can give in an election cycle to $5,200 for a federal candidate and $64,800 for a party committee.

The court let these so-called base limits stand on grounds that under the landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision, direct contributions to candidates hold the greatest possibility for creating corruption.

But if you accept the base limits, the aggregate limits on the total anyone can give to candidates in a single cycle ($48,600) and to party committees and PACs in a single cycle ($74,600) make no sense. By the logic of the law, if a contribution to one candidate of $5,200 or less is not corrupting, there should be no fear that a donor giving a couple of dozen candidates that amount will be corrupting. Each of the candidates is receiving the proscribed amount or less.

Once a donor hits the aggregate limit, though, it functions as an outright ban on further donations to candidates or parties — even though these donations aren’t corrupting. This is an impingement of his political rights without any upside of preventing graft.

The critics of the decision object to it partly on egalitarian grounds: Very few donors have the resources to contribute enough to bump up against the aggregate limits, so the decision gives disproportionate influence to a few people.

A free political system always has such disparities. Should Thomas Paine have been silenced, since his incredible rhetorical powers made him more influential than other pamphleteers? Should The New York Times be shuttered, since it exercises more power than almost anyone else in New York?

At the root of the left’s opposition to McCutcheon, and Citizens United before it, is that it reduces governmental control over the political process. That control is taken, ipso facto, to be a good thing.

If the First Amendment gets in the way, so much the worse for the First Amendment. Remember: The position of the Obama administration in oral arguments over Citizens United was that the government could ban books printed by corporations. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, has proposed amending the First Amendment to give the government more latitude to limit political expression.

In his decision, Roberts writes “that the First Amendment ‘is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views should be voiced largely into the hands of each of us.’” For those lamenting the decision, that is precisely the problem.

Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.

More in Opinion

A silver salmon is weighed at Three Bears in Kenai, Alaska. Evelyn McCoy, customer service PIC at Three Bears, looks on. (Photo by Jeff Helminiak/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Will coho salmon be the next to disappear in the Kenai River?

Did we not learn anything from the disappearance of the kings from the Kenai River?

Jonathan Flora is a lifelong commercial fisherman and dockworker from Homer, Alaska.
Point of View: Not fishing for favors — Alaskans need basic health care access

We ask our elected officials to oppose this bill that puts our health and livelihoods in danger.

Alex Koplin. (courtesy photo)
Opinion: Public schools do much more than just teach the three Rs

Isn’t it worth spending the money to provide a quality education for each student that enters our schools?

Gov. Mike Dunleavy speaks to reporters at the Alaska State Capitol on Thursday, April 17, 2025. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter to the Editor: Law enforcement officers helped ensure smooth, secure energy conference

Their visible commitment to public safety allowed attendees to focus fully on collaboration, learning, and the important conversations shaping our path forward.

Laurie Craig / Juneau Empire file photo
The present-day KTOO public broadcasting building, built in 1959 for the U.S. Army’s Alaska Communications System Signal Corps, is located on filled tidelands near Juneau’s subport. Today vehicles on Egan Drive pass by the concrete structure with satellite dishes on the roof that receive signals from NPR, PBS and other sources.
My Turn: Stand for the community radio, not culture war optics

Alaskans are different and we pride ourselves on that. If my vehicle… Continue reading

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) delivers his annual speech to the Alaska Legislature on Thursday, March 20, 2025. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Sullivan, Trump and the rule of lawlessness

In September 2023, U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan established his own Alaska Federal… Continue reading

UAA Provost Denise Runge photographed outside the Administration and Humanities Building at the University of Alaskas Anchorage. (courtesy photo)
Opinion: UAA’s College of Health — Empowering Alaska’s future, one nurse at a time

At the University of Alaska Anchorage, we understand the health of our… Continue reading

U.S. Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, address a joint session of the Alaska Legislature on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: A noncongressman for Alaska?

It’s right to ask whether Nick Begich is a noncongressman for Alaska.… Continue reading

Boats return to the Homer Harbor at the end of the fishing period for the 30th annual Winter King Salmon Tournament on Saturday, March 23, 2024 in Homer, Alaska. (Delcenia Cosman/Homer News)
Opinion: Funding sustainable fisheries

Spring is always a busy season for Alaska’s fishermen and fishing communities.… Continue reading

Gov. Mike Dunleavy holds a press conference on Monday, May 19, 2025, to discuss his decision to veto an education bill. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: On fiscal policy, Dunleavy is a governor in name only

His fiscal credibility is so close to zero that lawmakers have no reason to take him seriously.

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Nikiski, speaks in support overriding Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s veto of House Bill 69 at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau, Alaska, on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. (Mark Sabbatini/Juneau Empire)
Capitol Corner: Finishing a session that will make a lasting impact

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.