Skip to main content

Toobin: High court gives rich more say in elections

By Jeffrey Toobin
April 2, 2014 -- Updated 2159 GMT (0559 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • High court struck down $123,000 overall limit you can give candidates in an election
  • Jeffrey Toobin: Ruling expands influence of rich people most likely to run up against a limit
  • Toobin: Court left intact $5,200 limit on what you can give to one candidate
  • Majority sees money in political campaigns as the equivalent of political speech, he says

Editor's note: Jeffrey Toobin is CNN senior legal analyst and author of "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- In a 5-4 decision, Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down limits on the total amount people can donate to various political campaigns in an election season, a blow to federal election laws ahead of November's congressional midterm elections.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst, answers some questions about how this ruling works and its possible consequences.

Jeffrey Toobin
Jeffrey Toobin

What exactly does this ruling do? Are some limits still in place?

The court left intact the law that sets a $5,200 limit on the amount individuals can give to any single candidate in a campaign cycle, but struck down the $123,000 aggregate limit an individual can give to candidates in that time period. Wednesday's ruling declares the $123,200 limit unconstitutional. So now individuals can give up to $5,200 to as many candidates as they like.

Does this mean money will influence campaigns more than ever? Who is most likely to gain?

The decision gives rich people more power to influence campaigns. It expands the influence of people who have a lot of money to give. The end of the $123,200 overall limit means that people who have even more money to spend have more ways to spend it.

Is this a First Amendment issue? The protection of political speech?

Chief Justice Roberts' opinion said that campaign contributions can be regulated by Congress, but only under narrow circumstances. The only permissible laws ban what the court calls quid pro quo corruption -- in other words, bribes in the form of campaign contributions.

Because spreading the money around to lots of candidates does not present the risk of bribes to any individual candidate, according to the court, the overall limits had to be struck down.

How does this compare with Citizens United?

Justices strike down donor limit

This decision is similar to Citizens United, with a similar rationale. Citizens United was the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for political donations from corporations and special interest groups. The Roberts court believes in a simple idea -- spending money in political campaigns is the equivalent of political speech. Because the First Amendment prohibits most limits on speech, most limits on political contributions are in the process of being struck down.

What does this means for the future of campaign finance?

The next big question is whether the court will also strike down the $5,200 limit on individual contributions. In fact, very few people ran up against the $123,200 limit, so the practical effect of Wednesday's decision is limited. But lots of people give up to $5,200. Ending that limit would have a huge impact on political campaigns.

What are the chances of the court ending the $5,200 limit?

Justice Clarence Thomas said in a separate concurring opinion Wednesday that he thought the court should get rid of the $5,200 limit, but no other justices joined him -- yet. The decision was 5-4, so the four dissenters want to preserve campaign finance limits. The real question is whether the four other justices in the majority will join Thomas. It's hard to say. What's clear is that the court is looking for new ways to stop the regulation of political contributions -- and it's already stopped a lot of them.

What's behind all these decisions?

The core idea of the five justices in the majority is that spending money on political campaigns is a form of speech. The First Amendment strictly limits regulation of speech. Once you believe that money is speech, most campaign finance limits become unconstitutional.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
September 21, 2014 -- Updated 0730 GMT (1530 HKT)
John Sutter boarded a leaky oyster boat in Connecticut with a captain who can't swim as he set off to get world leaders to act on climate change
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 2322 GMT (0722 HKT)
Is ballet dying? CNN spoke with Isabella Boylston, a principal dancer at the American Ballet Theatre, about the future of the art form.
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 2147 GMT (0547 HKT)
Sally Kohn says it's time we take climate change as seriously as we do warfare in the Middle East
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1302 GMT (2102 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah says an Oklahoma state representative's hateful remarks were rightfully condemned by religious leaders..
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1922 GMT (0322 HKT)
No matter how much planning has gone into U.S. military plans to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Arab public isn't convinced that anything will change, says Geneive Abdo
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1544 GMT (2344 HKT)
President Obama's strategy for destroying ISIS seems to depend on a volley of air strikes. That won't be enough, says Haider Mullick.
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1303 GMT (2103 HKT)
Paul Begala says Hillary Clinton has plenty of good reasons not to jump into the 2016 race now
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1501 GMT (2301 HKT)
Scotland decided to trust its 16-year-olds to vote in the biggest question in its history. Americans, in contrast, don't even trust theirs to help pick the county sheriff. Who's right?
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 0157 GMT (0957 HKT)
Ruben Navarrette says spanking is an acceptable form of disciplining a child, as long as you follow the rules.
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1547 GMT (2347 HKT)
Frida Ghitis says the foiled Australian plot shows ISIS is working diligently to taunt the U.S. and its allies.
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 1958 GMT (0358 HKT)
Young U.S. voters by and large just do not see the midterm elections offering legitimate choices because, in their eyes, Congress has proven to be largely ineffectual, and worse uncaring, argues John Della Volpe
September 19, 2014 -- Updated 0158 GMT (0958 HKT)
Steven Holmes says spanking, a practice that is ingrained in our culture, accomplishes nothing positive and causes harm.
September 18, 2014 -- Updated 1831 GMT (0231 HKT)
Sally Kohn says America tried "Cowboy Adventurism" as a foreign policy strategy; it failed. So why try it again?
September 18, 2014 -- Updated 1427 GMT (2227 HKT)
Van Jones says the video of John Crawford III, who was shot by a police officer in Walmart, should be released.
September 18, 2014 -- Updated 1448 GMT (2248 HKT)
NASA will need to embrace new entrants and promote a lot more competition in future, argues Newt Gingrich.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 2315 GMT (0715 HKT)
If U.S. wants to see real change in Iraq and Syria, it will have to empower moderate forces, says Fouad Siniora.
September 18, 2014 -- Updated 0034 GMT (0834 HKT)
Mark O'Mara says there are basic rules to follow when interacting with law enforcement: respect their authority.
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1305 GMT (2105 HKT)
LZ Granderson says Congress has rebuked the NFL on domestic violence issue, but why not a federal judge?
September 16, 2014 -- Updated 1149 GMT (1949 HKT)
Mel Robbins says the only person you can legally hit in the United States is a child. That's wrong.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1723 GMT (0123 HKT)
Eric Liu says seeing many friends fight so hard for same-sex marriage rights made him appreciate marriage.
ADVERTISEMENT