[EL] McCutcheon -- identifying the nature of the contributor's constitutional right(s)

[Marty Lederman]

Thanks for responding, Brad.  In fairness to the listmember who asked the
original question, he did not say that he had "never encountered an
intellectually credible defense" of applying *McCutcheon*-like heightened
scrutiny to contribution limits -- merely that he didn't find much of such
a defense in the plurality opinion in *McCutcheon*.  And he's right about
that, at least if one is looking for a *free speech* defense.  My response
was to try to suggest that the free speech clause is not, in fact, doing
much work in the opinions of the new majority . . . in part, perhaps,
because the federal government treats donations to officeholders for campaign
speech *more *favorably than it treats most other forms of donations to
officeholders.

Instead, I think it's no accident that the Chief's opinion starts with that
paragraph about "*the right to participate in electing our political
leaders*."  This suggests that the Chief sees campaign contributions as a
component of that more "basic" right, along with running for office,
voting, independent expenditures for ads, and volunteering work on a
campaign.  If so, the interesting question is whether the new majority
would actually treat restrictions on voting and running for office with as
much skepticism as it treats contribution limits.

The quotations Brad offers are all very interesting; but I don't think any
of them suggests quite what the *McCutcheon* opening paragraph and holding
do about a broad "right to electoral participation" that encompasses
voting, running for office, contributions/expenditures and working on
campaigns, and that (treated seriously) might call into question any number
of regulations of these various modes of participating in campaigns.


On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu> wrote:

>  I don't much feel like addressing all the points in this analysis at
> this time, but two quick comments:
>
>  First, when I read something like what Marty says was asked on the
> LawCourts list, I know we're dealing with someone who either a) is very
> poorly informed, or b) not open to serious discussion. To suggest that one
> has never encountered an intellectually credible defense of the position of
> a majority of the Court, several other members of the Court over the years,
> and numerous top scholars in the field, is like wearing a sign around one's
> neck saying, "I'm not really serious." Credit to Marty for responding.
>
>  I do have some other thoughts on Marty's response but I'll just address
> quickly one point:
>
>  "'*There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to
> participate in electing our political leaders*....'
>
>   Has the Court ever said anything quite as unequivocal as this before?"
>
>  Yes, actually quite often.
> "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice
> in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens,
> we must live." - Wesberry v. Sanders
>
>  "'the political franchise of voting' ...[is] 'preservative of all
> rights.' - Reynolds v. Sims (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins) (moreso than the
> right to keep and bear arms? the right to a jury trial? the right speak out
> for one's rights?)
>
>  "If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the
> *individual*, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental
> intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision
> whether to bear or beget a child.” - Eisenstadt v. Baird
>
>  "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of
> existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
> - Planned Parenthood v. Casey
>
>  "The conception of political equality from the Declaration of
> Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth,
> Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing -- one
> person, one vote." Reynolds v. Sims
>
>  These were quotes that quickly came to mind (yes, I had to look them up
> to get the exact quote, but it took no time to recall them). My guess is
> that with a little effort we could find dozens of such statements from the
> Court.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  *Bradley A. Smith*
>
> *Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault*
>
> *   Professor of Law*
>
> *Capital University Law School*
>
> *303 E. Broad St.*
>
> *Columbus, OH 43215*
>
> *614.236.6317 <614.236.6317>*
>
> *http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx
> <http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx>*
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Marty
> Lederman [lederman.marty at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2014 4:41 PM
> *To:* Election Law; law-election at uci.edu; Rick Hasen
> *Subject:* [EL] McCutcheon -- identifying the nature of the contributor's
> constitutional right(s)
>
>   On the LawCourts list, someone asked whether anyone had encountered an
> intellectually credible defense of the First Amendment jurisprudence
> underlying the plurality opinion in *McCutcheon*.  This led to a
> discussion of how contributions are, or are not, a form of "free speech,"
> and about whether the Roberts opinion makes any such argument.  This was my
> response; I'd be interested in others' reactions, thanks:
>
>
>    The new majority has invoked at least four different notions of what
> the contributor's constitutional right might be.  Two of those notions
> (nominally) depend upon the idea of the contribution furthering the
> contributor's interest in speech, or expression -- but those rationales
> aren't really doing the serious work, I think.  The other two rationales
> are now dominant -- so much so that the cases might even come out the same
> if there were no Free Speech Clause.
>
>  1.  *Enhancing the contributor's speech to the electorate*.  This is the
> rationale that Mark Tushnet invokes [in an earlier post].  I give money to
> a candidate because I want to *persuade* the electorate, through
> advocacy, to vote for her -- and I can do so much more efficiently by
> pooling my money with others and by facilitating the use of that pooled
> money for candidate's own speech, which will be much more effective than my
> stand-alone speech ever could be.  (This notion goes back all the way to
> *Buckley*, of course -- that independent expenditures are less effective
> than the candidate's use of the same $$ for her own speech, and thus less
> valuable to the candidate.)
>
>  This rationale does not get much of a workout in *McCutcheon* and recent
> cases, except when the Court repeats its view (p. 2 of *McCutcheon*) that
> if the state's interest were "simply to limit" such political speech,
> such an objective would be constitutionally impermissible, because . . .
> well, because the First Amendment prohibits the states from seeking to
> limit campaign speech as such, even if the way it attempts to do so is by
> regulating conduct (contributions) antecedent to the speech.  Cf. Justice
> Kagan's free speech article; *Texas v. Johnson*; etc.
>
>  The problem with this horn of the argument is that although *some *proponents
> of campaign finance have been motivated by a desire to limit campaign
> speech, that doesn't describe what Congress has done over the years.
> Generally speaking, Congress does not treat contributions of money to
> current and prospective officeholders * worse* if that money is intended
> to be spent on campaign speech; it treats such speech-facilitating
> transfers of money *more favorably* than comparable non-campaign-related
> donations.  If I were to give an officeholder even $1000 to buy a yacht, or
> to help pay for her son's tuition, I would probably be convicted of a
> crime.  Not so if I "only" intend that same $1000 to facilitate her speech
> so that she might be re-elected.  Contributions for campaign speech, that
> is, are generally given *preferred* treatment, not disfavored treatment,
> under the law.
>
>  To the extent contribution limits are, indeed, designed not to affect
> campaign speech, but instead to be one variant of a broader regulation of a
> form of conduct without regard to communicative impact -- i.e., a general
> presumption that *transfers of money to officeholders qua officeholders
> are disfavored, no matter what the dollars are to be used for -- *they
> should be subject to the *O'Brien* intermediate scrutiny test, which is
> generally very deferential to the government, and under which the Court
> should sustain most contribution limits, at least as long as the regulation
> is not "aimed in part at equalizing the relative ability of all voters to
> affect electoral outcomes."  The "original sin" in this regard was the
> opinion in *Buckley*, which mistakenly rejected *O'Brien* scrutiny after
> the government and the lower court had argued for it.  424 U.S. at 15-17.
>
>  2.  *Preserving the contributor's right to "speak" to the candidate**.  *You're all familiar with this one:  The contribution is a way of my showing
> the candidate that I care.  This, too, plays almost no role in
> *McCutcheon* and similar opinions (other than making a cameo appearance),
> for at least two reasons.  First, same as above -- since the government's
> interest is not in stopping the donor from expressing her support to the
> candidate, the regulation should be subject to *O'Brien* scrutiny at
> most, and survive it.  Second, caps on * amount* do not have much, if
> any, effect, on my ability to demonstrate to the candidate that "I support
> you."
>
>  3.  *Protecting the right of "political participation."*  I apologize if
> this has already been discussed on-list and I missed it, but I thought the
> most remarkable, the most *surprising*, part of the Roberts opinion was
> its very first paragraph, which pivots *away *from a speech rationale to
> something much different:
>
> *There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to
> participate in electing our political leaders*. Citizens can exercise
> that right in a variety of ways: They can run for office themselves, vote,
> urge others to vote for a particular candidate, volunteer to work on a
> campaign, and contribute to a candidate’s campaign. This case is about the
> last of those options.
>
>  Has the Court ever said anything quite as unequivocal as this before?
> That the *most *basic constitutional right (presumably one that antedates
> the Bill of Rights and that needs no textual hook) is the right to
> participate in the electoral process -- a right that includes not only
> making political contributions and engaging in political speech
> (independent expenditures), but also running for office, voting, and
> working on a campaign?  (Although the plurality states in the next
> paragraph that it's the "First Amendment" that protects contributions, in
> particular, that statement doesn't mention the Free Speech Clause -- and,
> in any event, who needs the First Amendment if, even prior to 1791, there
> was an even more fundamental right to participate in elections?)
>
>  Now, I'm not naive enough to think that the Roberts Court is about to
> start protecting the right to vote, etc., to the same extent that it is now
> protecting the right to make political contributions, much less as a right
> that "more basic" than any other constitutional rights.  But this
> paragraph, taken seriously, could be the source of a new flourishing of
> voting rights and other election-related rights.  More to the immediate
> point, regardless of its generative impact, the remainder of the Roberts
> opinion is *much *more attuned to this notion of a basic "participation
> in elections" right than to any notion of contributions as "free speech"
> under the First Amendment.  And if there *were *such a "basic" right, the
> opinion would make much more internal sense than if viewed through a Free
> Speech Clause lens.
>
>  4.
>
> *A "right" of responsiveness of officeholders? *
> Finally, there is the theme in the opinion that will undoubtedly be its
> most controversial -- namely, that the ingratiation and access that are
> purchased with political contributions are not a problem to be addressed by
> Congress, but instead, a fundamental constitutional *virtue*,
> "embody[ing] a central feature of democracy—that constituents support
> candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are
> elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns."  (Of course,
> the *logic* of the Roberts opinion is even stronger than that--namely,
> that the "central feature" of the U.S. system as they understand it is that
> elected officials should not merely be responsive to all of their
> constituents, or to all of their supporters, in equal measure, but instead
> that officeholders should be * more *responsive to those constituents who
> have contributed the most money . . . and that it is illegitimate for the
> legislature to try to shift such responsiveness away from such a
> money-based correlation.)
>
>  If, as this suggests, there is some sort of fundamental "democratic"
> right of constituents to have their representatives act in a way that is
> "responsive" to the concerns reflected *in the amount of money
> contributed* by various actors during an election, then contribution
> limits are a direct suppression of that "central feature" of the
> Constitution, and would be for that reason alone constitutionally suspect.
> Under this rationale, too, the opinion would "make sense."  (Of course, as
> others have suggested, it would also call into question why quid pro quos
> aren't even *more *of a "central feature" of democracy worthy of
> constitutional protection -- after all, there's no more direct and
> efficient way of ensuring that officials are "responsive" to the concerns
> underlying the $$.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140420/9737b7fa/attachment.html>