SUPREME COURT

Line between campaign gifts and bribes getting thinner

 
 
MCT
MCT
Nease / MCT

Bloomberg News

There are three big winners from the recent Supreme Court decisions that Sen. John McCain says might “dismantle entirely” campaign-finance laws: wealthy interests, greedy politicians and investigative journalists.

Wealthy individuals, corporations and unions will spend unlimited sums to affect elections, and rich donors can now give huge amounts to political party committees.

All this cash sloshing around seems certain to produce the mother of all political scandals. Why? It always does. The initial ban on corporate contributions more than a century ago was in response to bribes; the contemporary reforms grew out of Watergate, when excessive money led to corruption and criminality.

The definition of corruption was hotly debated on the court by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer. The chief justice, who opposes most campaign-finance restrictions, offered a narrow interpretation: Political corruption is bribery only, a direct exchange of an official act for money.

There are contemporary examples of clear-cut quid pro quo going back to the dairy industry in Watergate and, more recently, involving a congressman caught with cash stashed in his refrigerator. Such cases are rare and almost always stem from a government sting operation or a high-powered prosecutor with subpoena powers.

Breyer takes a much broader view, arguing that the obvious appearance of corruption, not just quid-pro-quo bribery, poisons the political process and public trust. His definition includes “the privileged access to and the pernicious influence upon elected representatives.” That, he says, makes campaign-finance limits justified.

Breyer observed that there has been recognition by Congress and, until recently, by the Supreme Court, that this involves a vital governmental interest.

This is one of those not-infrequent occasions when the high court could have used Sandra Day O’Connor, the last justice who actually ran for political office and who retired in 2006.

Her opinions and observations might have explained why the court’s majority view is out of touch with political reality. Politicians know the source of the money — the secret donors today have a way of making sure they do — as well as the agenda of those givers.

Special interests work both sides of the political aisle. Some of the most persuasive voices against the influence of big money are prominent Republicans.

“Who can seriously contend that a $100,000 donation does not alter the way one thinks about and possibly votes on an issue?” said former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson.

Bill Brock, one of the most successful chairmen of the Republican National Committee, has said the problem goes well beyond bribery: “The appearance of corruption is corrosive and is undermining our democracy.”

Among the remaining elements of the post-Watergate reforms are limits on direct contributions to candidates for federal office. In the current cycle, an individual cannot give more than $2,600 to a candidate in each of the primary and the general elections, with a ceiling of $5,200.

Some activists and a few Supreme Court justices would like to target these limits. Under the Roberts rationale, they seem like a natural quarry.

That would have a big impact. Politicians appreciate — and often reward — rich interests that spend money on their behalf. Nothing, however, is as valuable as money a candidate controls. If a big donor could directly hand over huge amounts to a candidate, the change to the political dynamics would be even greater than those wrought by the other sweeping rulings. Quid pro quo would be virtually irrelevant.

Few politicians understood the nexus of money and politics better than the late Sen. Russell B. Long of Louisiana, where both are a religion: “The distinction between a large campaign contribution and a bribe,” he said, “is almost a hairline’s difference.”

Albert R. Hunt is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was formerly the executive editor of Bloomberg News, directing coverage of the Washington bureau.

© 2014, Bloomberg News

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

  • CIVIL UNREST

    It can happen here, if we let it

    America’s urban cores have, in many cases, been abandoned by the powerful, dissected by highways that destroy a feeling of community and neglected in the apportionment of educational opportunities. The combination of external neglect and internal dysfunction has engendered explosive conditions — an undercurrent of anger that is easily made into a combustible mixture by the use of deadly force, typically involving a white police officer and a black citizen.

  •  
PUTNEY

    FLORIDA RACES

    Disgusted with smarmy campaigns

    How seriously should we take the candidates on the November ballot? As seriously as they take the big issues, which is not very.

  • In My Opinion

    Ray Rice’s fans are too quick to forgive

    “I think they’re going too far with Ray Rice.”

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category