• Try a Digital Subscription campaign: inyt2013_bar1_digi_euro_3LFL3 -- 221762, creative: bar1_digi_euro_3LFL3 -- 353957, page: www.nytimes.com/yr/ mo/day/opinion/politicians-for-sale.html, targetedPage: www.nytimes.com/yr/ mo/day/opinion, position: Bar1 • Log In • Register Now • Help • Home Page • Today's Paper • Video • Most Popular Edition: U.S. / Global Search Opinion [ ] Search New York Times [opinion-lo] • World • U.S. • N.Y. / Region • Business • Technology • Science • Health • Sports • Opinion □ Editorials □ Columnists □ Contributors □ Letters □ The Public Editor □ Global Opinion • Arts • Style • Travel • Jobs • Real Estate • Autos Editorial Politicians for Sale By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Published: October 7, 2013 Nearly four years after its controversial ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court is once again taking up the issue of the regulation of money in politics. This time, the risk to the integrity of elected officials, and public confidence in government, may be even greater. Today's Editorials • Editorial: The International Fallout (October 8, 2013) • Editorial: A Breakthrough on Iraqi Visas (October 8, 2013) Related in Opinion • Op-Ed Contributor: It’s Not Citizens United (October 2, 2013) Opinion Twitter Logo. Connect With Us on Twitter For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT. On Tuesday, the court is scheduled to hear oral argument in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which an Alabama businessman, Shaun McCutcheon, challenges the constitutionality of the overall cap on contributions an individual may make directly to federal candidates, party committees and political action committees in each two-year election cycle. Mr. McCutcheon says this limit — currently set at $123,200 — violates his First Amendment right to free speech. The government argues that the overall limit, together with the $5,200 limit on an individual’s donations to a particular candidate, works to prevent political corruption, as well as the appearance of corruption. The limits were enacted by Congress in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. In a 1976 case, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court struck down limits on campaign spending, but it upheld the limits on direct political contributions. Since then, the court has upheld every federal contribution limit that has come before it. Mr. McCutcheon contends that striking down the overall limit would not undermine protections against corruption because an individual would still be bound by the per-candidate limits. But this ignores the reality of modern campaign finance, in which politicians and party committees solicit large sums from individual donors and then funnel the money through fund-raising committees to particular candidates. Without the current cap, the government argues, a single donor could give up to $3.6 million to a party’s political candidates and committees in an election cycle. The very wealthiest Americans already have disproportionate influence: in the 2012 election, 1,219 donors reached or nearly reached the overall limit, and together they were responsible for giving $155 million to federal races. One study, by Demos and the United States Public Interest Research Group, projected that without the overall limit in place, those donors would have contributed nearly triple that amount — or nearly 50 percent more than President Obama and Mitt Romney received from all small donors combined. This is significant because a recent report by political science researchers showed that the wealthy differ significantly from ordinary Americans in their policy preferences. For example, job creation is consistently the top priority for most Americans, but the budget deficit is the most pressing problem among the wealthiest. Sensible contribution limits do not limit speech. As the court recognized in the Buckley case, they are a “quite modest restraint” that help prevent evasion of the per-candidate limit. An individual like Mr. McCutcheon may still say whatever he wants, and he may spend all he would like on independent campaign-related messages. The nation’s founders understood the threat of corruption in politics and were preoccupied with combating it. The government should be dependent on “the great body of the people,” James Madison wrote, and not “an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.” If the court is going to help protect American politics from becoming little more than “a disagreement among rich people,” as one observer put it, it should follow its own precedent and uphold the overall contribution limit. [meter] Meet The New York Times’s Editorial Board » This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: October 10, 2013 An editorial on Tuesday about a Supreme Court case concerning campaign contributions incorrectly implied that the 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed individuals to make unlimited independent expenditures in elections. That right was extended to individuals by a 1976 Supreme Court case. A version of this editorial appears in print on October 8, 2013, on page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Politicians for Sale. * Subscribe to the International New York Times newspaper and save up to 65% [GBH_NYT88x3] Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics Supreme Court (US) Campaign Finance Citizens United v Federal Election Commission (Supreme Court McCutcheon, Decision) Shaun [1388695317439_us] Banned at home and noticed by Oscars Also on NYTimes.com • Oscar season preview • Learn about Christian Bale's character secrets nytimes.com [13_2259_INYT_Anon_Euro_300x79_ER1] [moth_rever] [moth_forwa] Inside NYTimes.com Opinion » Opinion » Offending Television Theater Business Bloomberg » Op-Ed: » » or Opinion » N.Y. / Fired? Speaking ‘Downton Sports » Region » U.S. » Speak No Theater » In Your From Ore Truth? Abbey’ Op-Ed: Evil Opinion » Seat to Returns Europeans Delivering Books » but on Nuggets, Room for for a United, an Opinion Giving up Your With Debate Fourth in Hating Is Tebow’s Review Houston the right When Toes Peril asks Season Europe New Test of and Its to speak Spidey Op-Ed: whether Table for Bayonne Strip and write Flies No Lethal In Your From Ore speakers ‘Downton Op-Ed: Delivering Two Bridge Clubs freely More, Malfeasance Seat to at the de Abbey’ Europeans an Opinion (Countries) Project Call a strikes Will in Malawi but on Nuggets, Blasio Returns United, Is Tebow’s Is Truce me as the Business? Your With inaugural for a in Hating New Test Assailed unholiest Toes Peril were rude Fourth Europe of deals or merely Season for a speaking writer to for accept. voters. • © 2013 The New York Times Company • Site Map • Privacy • Your Ad Choices • Advertise • Terms of Sale • Terms of Service • Work With Us • RSS • Help • Contact Us • Site Feedback * * DCSIMG