EDITORIAL/Money and Politics: Supreme Court continues to chip away at restrictions

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, scored a victory Monday in the nation's highest court. So did those with a lot of money who crave more influence in Washington.

The losers, as always these days, were the average American voters Cruz is supposed to serve.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 2002 political finance law that limited to $250,000 the amount of post-election contributions candidates could use to repay themselves for loans they made to their own campaigns.

In other words, wealthy donors are allowed to contribute after a victory was assured to help a candidate pay himself back for loans to the campaign. That's a pretty good deal for the candidate. And It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how much influence that could buy.

But Congress limited the amount of post-election contributions that could be used to $250,000 -- still a very generous sum, but apparently not enough for politicians like Cruz.

He sued to have the law declared unconstitutional. And by a vote of 6 to 3, the conservatives on the court agreed.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts followed the court's reasoning in recent years defining monetary political contributions as a form of speech. He said the $250,000 limit might keep candidates from loaning money to their campaigns, thus stifling their First Amendment rights.

Writing in dissent, Associate Justice Elena Kagan dismissed that argument.

"Repaying a candidate's loan after he has won election cannot serve the usual purposes of a contribution: The money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activities. All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor -- by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption,"she wrote.

We tend to side with Kagan on this one. And we are skeptical of the idea that big money political largesse, the privilege of a few, is the same thing as the right to free speech available to us all. Unfortunately, this is hardly the only ruling that dangerously steers more control of our government firmly in the hands of those with the most money.

In 2008, the court made it easier for millionaire candidates to gain an advantage through financing their own campaigns. With the 2010 Citizens United decision, the court opened the floodgates and allowed both corporate and union dollars into political activity. And in 2014 the court struck down the aggregate limit on how much an individual can contribute to political parties and federal candidates during a single two-year election cycle.

It should be noted these rulings benefit wealthy conservative and liberal donors alike. And they hurt ordinary citizens who can't pony up large contributions, no matter their political leanings.

Unfortunately, we have little doubt the court will continue down this path until there are few if any restrictions on the power of cold hard cash on our political system.

Upcoming Events