Ruling might threaten campaign-finance reform

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month to strike down a law designed to level the playing field for non-wealthy political candidates could have a dramatic impact on other campaign-finance laws, the Washington Post believes.

In striking down the Millionaire’s Amendment, the court could threaten state public-financing systems and restrictions on corporate and union spending, the Post stated in a June 29 editorial.

New Mexico is one of five states with no campaign contribution limits for corporations, unions or anyone else, but there’s been a strong push in recent years by Common Cause and other groups to change that. If the Post is right, the high court’s ruling could further hinder their so-far unsuccessful efforts.

New Mexico has also created a public financing system in recent years for the Public Regulation Commission, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Advocates want to further expand the program in the next few years.

In striking down the Millionaire’s Amendment, the court, with a five-justice majority, said increasing contribution limits for opponents of wealthy, self-financing candidates — but not increasing limits for the wealthy candidates — violated the wealthy candidates’ First Amendment right to political speech.

Most state public-financing systems are designed to level the playing field in the same manner as the now-defunct Millionaire’s Amendment. In New Mexico, the publicly-financed candidate gets a stipend of a certain amount. If a privately-financed opponent raises more than that — from outside contributions or personal wealth — or if outside groups spend lots of money in opposition to the publicly financed candidate, that candidate can get up to twice the original stipend to keep up.

The Post speculated in the editorial that the high court’s ruling could spell doom for such public-financing systems.

In addition, the Post stated, the majority on the high court “appears increasingly intolerant of restrictions on corporate spending, which have traditionally been justified by the desire not to have candidates’ voices drowned by corporate speech.” Last month’s ruling, the Post stated, “pointedly cited” one justice’s dissent in a 1990 case upholding a Michigan law prohibiting independent expenditures by corporations to back or oppose political candidates.

“The corporate and union spending limits are clearly on borrowed time,” election law expert Rick Hasen wrote following the court’s ruling, according to the Post.

“The future of campaign finance legislation looks awfully shaky in the hands of this court,” the Post editorial stated.