Illinois has long been infamous for its political corruption, and in 2009, embarrassed by the indictment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the state decided to do something about it — or at least pretend to. Gov. Pat Quinn signed a measure that for the first time put broad limits on campaign donations, in an attempt to keep big donors from buying the loyalty of officeholders.
This law is riddled with flaws. One is that it imposed political spending caps on everyone except political party leaders — the very people who shepherded the bill into law. They gave themselves an exemption so they can give unlimited contributions to their favored candidates.
Another serious problem is that the law lumped contributions to candidates with contributions to groups that mount their own independent efforts to influence the outcome of elections. That’s a lousy policy, and it’s now being challenged in court by one of the groups hamstrung by the new law. The challenge illustrates the pitfalls of trying to keep money — which is essential for effective communication in our time — from finding its way into the election process.
Personal PAC, founded in 1978, works in various ways to elect candidates (Republicans as well as Democrats) who support abortion rights and contraceptive access. But it says its efforts have been blocked by the $10,000 limit on individual contributions and $20,000 limit on corporate gifts, as well as the rule barring it from setting up more than one PAC.
The lawsuit claims these regulations are unconstitutional under recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions because they abridge the First Amendment rights both of Personal PAC and those who contribute (or would contribute) to it. It says Personal PAC lost out on more than $100,000 in likely donations because of the limit.
It’s one thing to put a cap on donations to candidates or political parties, which the Supreme Court has upheld. But the court has been much more skeptical of limits on independent expenditures, which must operate free of coordination with campaigns.
In a landmark 1976 decision, the court struck down a ceiling on independent expenditures because it “fails to serve any substantial governmental interest in stemming the reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process” but “heavily burdens core First Amendment expression.”
Contributions could be treated differently, but to do so would require a curious logic. If the government can’t stop you from spending as much as you want on an independent effort to help a candidate, how can it stop you from giving as much as you want for such an effort?
Either rule would clearly interfere with potentially valuable, protected speech about matters of public interest. All Personal PAC wants to do is help citizens who favor abortion rights pool their funds to inform and motivate voters to help elect like-minded candidates.
You may agree or disagree with the group’s policy preferences. But in a democracy, efforts of this sort, from groups across the spectrum, are not something to prevent. They are something to welcome.
