http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/ruling-returns-power-to-big-donors-and-party-leaders.html

APRIL 2, 2014

Ruling Bolsters Big Donors and Party Establishments

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

A Supreme Court decision issued on Wednesday [1] is likely to fundamentally reshape the political terrain for the 2014 elections and beyond, further increasing the influence of large donors, but also opening the door for each party's establishment to reclaim some power from "super PACs" and other outside groups.

The decision, which flowed from a legal challenge by Shaun McCutcheon, [2] a wealthy Alabama businessman and Republican donor, erased a decades-old limit on the total amount any one person can give to federal candidates and parties in any two-year election cycle. The limit had meant that no donors, no matter how large their bank account, could make the maximum contribution to more than a handful of candidates and PACs each year.

The ruling [3] most empowers two groups of people: those with the wherewithal to spend millions of dollars on campaign contributions, and those with access to them, including party leaders, senior lawmakers and presidents.

It would allow donors to contribute to as many candidates as they want, freeing those with the means to pour millions of dollars into candidates and parties in each election. Current rules limit each donor to contributing a total of $123,300 to federal candidates, parties and political action committees during the 2014 election cycle. But when the ruling goes into effect, a single donor could contribute more than $2.5 million to each party's congressional campaigns, according to a study by Democracy 21, a watchdog group that favors more restrictive campaign finance rules.

Each party's establishment -- and the Republican and Democratic National Committees in particular -- have seen their clout and influence steadily erode in the decade since Congress passed legislation banning parties from collecting unlimited contributions, known as soft money, from big donors.

But campaign experts said the decision would pave the way for party leaders, such as Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio or the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to form joint fund-raising committees and solicit multimillion-dollar checks on behalf of their party's candidates.

"The Supreme Court has re-established the dangerous corrupting nexus between large contributions from influence-seeking donors and federal office holders soliciting these contributions," said Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21.

Supporters of the decision noted that it could bring more transparency to campaign fund-raising, since the new money permitted by the decision would flow into entities that are required to disclose their donors. And because party leaders often have the closest ties to big donors, the decision could give officials like Mr. Boehner a new and powerful tool with which to discipline rank-and-file members.

"Today's court decision in McCutcheon v. F.E.C. is an important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust, transparent political discourse," said Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, which joined the lawsuit with Mr. McCutcheon.

But critics said they believed a more likely result was that the decision would simply layer more big-donor cash onto the existing world of super PACs, which already disclose contributions, and political nonprofits, which do not.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/us/politics/justices-to-weigh-key-limit-on-political-donors.html

[3] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1100761-mccutcheon-v-federal-election-commission-decision.html