Super PACs influence on the Supreme Court is slightly tricky in the sense that the average citizen cannot vote for the next justice. However, let's first look at a recent development in campaign financing that is effecting SCOTUS: McCutcheon v. FEC.
McCutcheon: “The whole thing is an important First Amendment free-speech thing...It’s about your right to spend your money however you choose on as many candidates as you choose. It’s freedom.”
On October 8th, the Supreme Court heard the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Shaun McCutcheon is a
conservative businessman from Alabama who wants to be able to give more money
to political candidates and committees. His case primarily rests on the idea that the law violates the First Amendment.
There are several results if the aggregate limits are struck down. (1) Wealthy donors who can afford to make many donations will have greater influence when it comes to donating to candidates directly. (2) Those who support the limits are concerned that the ruling could increase the power and size of joint fundraising committees drastically. (3) In addition, they are also concerned that the ruling could lead to a snowball effect in which all other limits will also be removed including the individual limits.
So
where does the court stands now? So far, it looks like Chief Justice
Roberts and Justice Alito Jr. will be key players in this case. Other
Republican nominated Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas have made clear
that they are ready to overturn Buckley. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of
McCutcheon, party leaders can set up a joint fundraising committee with
their presidential nominee, congressional candidates, and state
affiliates to accept almost $3.7 million from one individual in each
election cycle. In general, Democrats largely trying to uphold these
limits and Republicans are looking to remove them.
Though there is not a specific Super PAC directly corrupting SCOTUS, I did come across an interesting study published by Emory University School of Law (the full study is linked). Michael Kang and Joanna Shepherd find that "every dollar of direct contributions from business groups is associated with an increase in the probability that the judge in question will vote for business litigants." Of course, financial contributions are much more influential in state supreme courts where 90% of state appellate judges must be regularly reelected. For the state supreme court, the second study also by Shepherd for the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, she finds that "the analysis reveals that a justice who receives half of his or her contributions from business groups would be expected to vote in favor of business interests almost two-thirds of the time." In 2012, the North Carolina Judicial Coalition spent more than $1.3 million to re-elect NC State Supreme Court Justice Paul Newby. This has also occurred in Florida, Alaska, Colorado, and Illinois.
While the problem seems to be less of an issue for SCOTUS, Super PACs are a real issue for lower courts. Looking through the registered Super PACs, I could not find any that direct specifically to the judges. The closest were related to lawyers/law firms.
The most important way Super PACs seem to be involved with SCOTUS is the role the Supreme Court plays to the future of campaign finance reforms.
Sources:
Cartoon. The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 30 July 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/07/supreme-court-another-citizens-united-but-worse.html>.
No comments:
Post a Comment