Did John Roberts have New York in mind while writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court’s latest decision on free speech?
It sure seems that way. Because the chief justice’s finding of “a substantial mismatch between the government’s stated objective and the means selected to achieve it” is a pretty good description of Albany’s own misguided efforts to address political corruption through public financing.
In its 5-4 ruling, the court sided with the First Amendment and Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman who argued that limits on the aggregate amount he could donate during an election cycle meant he could not contribute the legal maximum to all the candidates he supported.
The court noted that “contributing money to a candidate is an exercise of an individual’s right to participate in the electoral process through both political expression and political association.”
Put plainly, the court said government may not limit contributions “simply to reduce the amount of money in politics” or to “level the playing field.” Though this might be repugnant to some, wrote Roberts, so is “much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects.”
Or this gem: “The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”
Already we’re hearing howls that this hands America over to the dastardly Koch brothers. In fact it helps restore the primacy of the First Amendment. And by making it easier to donate to candidates and parties, it will likely increase transparency and may even lessen the influence of the Super PACs empowered by the court’s ruling in Citizens United.
The message for New York’s political class? It’s this: Many of the campaign-finance schemes so popular in your little bubble are unconstitutional.
Let’s hope Albany can read.