Supreme Court Backs Political Donor Limits

The Supreme Court strongly endorsed the cause of campaign funding reform Monday, ruling that the government has broad power to limit how much money rich donors give to political candidates.

“Democracy works only if the people have faith in those who govern,” said Justice David H. Souter, adding that such faith could be shattered if the voters come to believe that “large donors call the tune.”

Speaking for a 6-3 majority, he concluded that preserving the public’s trust in the “integrity of our electoral process” outweighs an individual’s right to give large sums to a favored candidate.

The ruling revived a $1,000 contribution limit that Missouri’s voters imposed on their candidates for state offices.

The limit had been struck down last year by a conservative U.S. Court of Appeals in St. Louis. Its judges said that the limit violated the free speech rights of a novice candidate for state auditor and his handful of supporters.

Lawyers for the Republican National Committee and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the leading opponent of new limits on political cash, had defended that ruling. They urged the court to use the Missouri case to sweep aside fund-raising limits as outdated and unconstitutional.

Instead, Souter’s opinion gives contribution limits new life and a powerful reaffirmation. Fund-raising restrictions should be upheld, he said, unless they are “so radical . . . as to drive the sound of the candidate’s voice below the level of notice.”

The high court’s opinion is likely to revive a $500-per-election limit for statewide candidates set by California’s voters in 1996. A federal judge in Sacramento knocked down the limit as a free speech violation two years ago and the state’s lawyers are appealing, with a trial expected later this year.

Campaign funding has emerged as a major issue in this year’s race for the White House. The leading challengers on both the Democratic and Republican sides have championed the cause of campaign finance reform. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is challenging front-runner George W. Bush for the GOP nomination, and former Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), who is running behind Vice President Al Gore in most polls, appeared together in New Hampshire in December.

Both candidates pledged that they would push for reform of campaign finance laws and would “not allow our political parties to spend soft money”--unregulated donations to political parties--if they are nominated.

Ironically, Texas Gov. Bush has raised far more for his campaign than any other candidate--more than $60 million--but none of it is soft money.

McCain has pushed hard for changes in political financing laws in the Senate, teaming with Democratic Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, but the efforts--disliked by the GOP leadership in both houses of Congress--have failed to win passage of a bill.

Common Cause, a public interest group committed to limiting the influence of money in politics, called Monday’s ruling a “home run.” President Clinton said that it should spur Congress to ban soft money.

“The American people know that our political system needs to be fixed, and today’s decision sets the stage for further reform,” Clinton said.

Money in politics tends to be like water running downhill. Blocked at one spot, it tends to flow another way. In recent years, the flow of the largest contributions--many of them $100,000 or more, most of them from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals--has gone to the major political parties. Because they have a free speech right to tout their views, the parties spend this soft money to promote their positions.

Technically, the parties are not allowed to use soft money to endorse or oppose a candidate. In practice, however, they use the funds to run ads on radio and television that do everything but endorse a candidate.

Getting Around Federal Rules

Advocates of reform say that this loophole makes a mockery of federal rules on campaign funding.

Feingold said that Monday’s ruling exposes the “high-minded arguments” against reform as “largely phony and an excuse not to deal with the corrupting influence of big contributions.”

McConnell was unswayed, however. “Contrary to popular spin, this case had absolutely nothing to do with soft money or contributions to political parties,” he said.

In one sense, Monday’s ruling simply reaffirms the legal status quo and does not necessarily change the political picture.

Contributions to candidates can be limited, the justices said in the 1976 case of Buckley vs. Valeo, but candidates are free to spend as much as they choose.

Ever since, this two-track approach has been sharply criticized by liberals and conservatives.

Critics on the left faulted the court for allowing wealthy candidates to spend unlimited sums. They said that the Buckley ruling created a new type of candidate, epitomized by Texas billionaire Ross Perot, magazine publisher Steve Forbes and New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump. Using their own wealth, these men can boost themselves into the national political spotlight.

Critics on the right, including McConnell, faulted the court for limiting contributions to candidates to $1,000. These ceilings, unadjusted for inflation, make it hard for unknown candidates to seek office, they said. Further, the system forces known candidates to spend much of their time raising money in $1,000 increments.

While critics on the right had been winning over some judges, those on the left have been winning with the voters.

Opinion polls have shown steadily popular support for campaign finance reform. When put on the ballot, limits on fund-raising by candidates have won approval from voters in California and several other states.

In all, more than one-third of the states have limited how much can be given to candidates.

“The people want reform, and this decision gives a green light to Congress and the states,” said Scott Harshbarger, president of Common Cause.

Before Monday, judges in the lower courts had been skeptical of new limits on the grounds that they crimp the free speech rights of candidates and their supporters.

But Souter’s opinion takes the side of voters and their concern for clean government.

“There is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will work actual corruption of our political system,” he wrote, “and no reason to question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters.”

The issue came before the court when Missouri Atty. Gen. Jay Nixon appealed the ruling striking down his state’s law.

Significantly, two of the court’s leading conservatives, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, signed Souter’s opinion. They have voted consistently to uphold state laws.

Also joining the majority in the case (Nixon vs. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 98-9639) were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. In separate statements, these three hinted that they would uphold new limits on campaign spending if the issue returned to the court.

The dissenters, Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, said that the contribution limits violate the 1st Amendment and should be struck down. Money is speech in politics, they said, and “political speech” deserves the highest protection.

In another campaign-related matter, the court refused to free a California Democratic fund-raiser from charges that she hid illegal contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign (Hsia vs. United States, 99-680).

Maria Hsia, an immigration consultant in the Los Angeles area, was accused of steering contributions from a Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights to the Democratic presidential campaign.

Her lawyers said that she did not knowingly violate the law. While a federal judge agreed, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ordered her to stand trial. Without comment, the high court dismissed her appeal and refused to intervene.

Justice Dept. Power Limited

In a second ruling announced Monday, the court limited the Justice Department’s historic power to oversee electoral districts in the South (Reno vs. Bossier Parish, 98-405).

Since 1965, federal authorities must approve changes in the districts before they take effect.

On a 5-4 vote, the court said that, unless the new system makes things worse for African Americans, the government cannot block the moves. At issue was the makeup of a Louisiana school board, which had only white members before 1990.

*

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this story.

*

* CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Backers of California’s Prop. 208, which caps political fund-raising, hail ruling. A3