While Applauding Court For Upholding
Restrictions On Soft Money And Political Advertising, Reform Groups Say Hard
Money Decision Hurts Poor And Non-wealthy Voters
WASHINGTON, D.C.—While
upholding restrictions on soft money and political advertising, the Supreme
Court's failure today to strike down McCain-Feingold's radical increases in
hard money contribution limits ensures that wealthy donors will continue to
strongly influence who runs for office and who wins elections in the United
States, according to the organizational plaintiffs in the Adams v. FEC case
that challenged these increases.
Represented by the National
Voting Rights Institute, CALPIRG, MASSPIRG, NJPIRG, U.S. PIRG, ACORN, and The
Fannie Lou Hamer Project were joined by non-wealthy voters and candidates in
challenging the increases in hard money contribution limits of the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The suit charged that these increases deny non-wealthy
Americans equal participation in the political process, and therefore violate
the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"The Court has turned a blind eye to the interests of non-wealthy voters,"
said the state PIRGs' Democracy Advocate Dana Mason. "The concerns of ordinary
Americans, whose voices are drowned out by those who can write $2,000 checks,
fell on deaf ears when the Court upheld the increase in hard money limits."
The increased contribution limits are already having a significant impact on
the current presidential campaign. Candidates in the 2004 presidential elections
have raised nearly 30 percent of their funds from contributions that would have
been illegal before BCRA doubled individual contribution limits, according to
a U.S. PIRG analysis.
Yet very few Americans are
able to afford these sizeable donations. Only 0.11 percent of the voting age
population contributed sums of at least $1,000 to a 2002 congressional candidate,
but these large contributions accounted for 55.5 percent of the candidates'
individual fundraising. In light of these observations, the reform groups strongly
protested the Court's decision.
"The Supreme Court
has overlooked the will of common Americans, and ruled in the interest of the
wealthiest few in this country," said ACORN National President Maude Hurd.
"The Court has missed another opportunity to speak for all of us."
Not only do the reform groups
assert that McCain-Feingold excludes non-wealthy Americans from the electoral
process, but they also point to the doubling of contribution limits from $1,000
to $2,000 under the new law as a major factor in the current breakdown of the
presidential public financing system. As candidates are able to raise more money
from fewer donors, it is much easier to surpass the voluntary spending limits.
When, as occurred in the 2002 congressional elections, 94 percent of the candidates
who raise the most money win the general elections, candidates can ill afford
to fall behind in the fundraising race.
The reform groups applauded
the Court for upholding the restrictions on soft money and political advertising.
On behalf of the organizational plaintiffs in the Adams case, the National Voting
Rights Institute filed a separate friend-of-the-court brief in support of the
soft money restrictions. The reform groups point out, however, that the decision
to uphold those provisions of the law is completely undermined by the Court's
failure to strike down the increase in the hard money limits.
In upholding the restrictions
on soft money and political advertising, the Court cited "the ill effects
of aggregated wealth on our political system." Yet, the reform groups say,
those "ill effects of aggregated wealth" will be exacerbated by the
hard money increases, particularly given the dominant practice of elite donors
bundling hard money contributions to their favored political candidates.
"While McCain-Feingold
makes a step toward returning the election system to ordinary Americans with
one hand," noted the state PIRGs' Senior Democracy Advocate Adam Lioz,
"the doubling of hard money limits effectively removes it from our reach
again with the other."
Given that the Court has
declined to uphold standards of fairness and equal participation in the electoral
system, the groups renewed their call to Americans to demand an overhaul of
the current campaign finance system.
"Instead of dramatically
increasing contribution limits, our lawmakers should enact real reform that
includes both lowering the limits to levels that average Americans can afford
and increasing the public financing of elections," said Mason. "Such
reforms would put us on the path to making elections into contests of ideas
rather than financial arms races fueled by the wealthy."
"History will prove
us right," said John C. Bonifaz, NVRI's executive director and lead counsel
for the plaintiffs. "In 1937 and in 1951, the United States Supreme Court
upheld the poll tax as constitutional, allowing an electoral barrier to poor
voters to exist in this country for decades. But those rulings did not stand
the test of time. The constitutional promise of political equality eventually
prevailed and the poll tax barrier was eliminated. The Court's ruling today
upholding the hard money increases violates that same constitutional promise
and will eventually be proven wrong."
