The Futility of Contribution Limits in the Age of Super PACs
Drake University Law School
March 7, 2012
Drake Law Review, Vol. 60, No. 3, 2012
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the time has come for a fundamental reassessment of campaign finance law. This article proposes that Congress and the state legislatures reassert the primacy of candidate campaign committees by abandoning limits on direct contributions to candidates. Rather than persist with the futile effort to limit the influence of money on politics through contribution limits, reformers should adopt the more modest and achievable goal of complete transparency in campaign fundraising.
This proposal is far less radical than it might seem at first. Currently, four states place no limits on contributions to candidate campaigns, and eight others impose only minimal restrictions. The experience of those 12 states — almost one quarter of the nation’s 50 states — demonstrates that elections without significant contribution limits are a viable and highly preferable alternative to the current state of affairs in federal elections.
To be sure, lifting contribution limits is not a panacea for all of the problems that plague modern American politics. With or without contribution limits, corruption and the appearance of corruption will remain a troubling feature of our political life. But liberating candidate campaigns from contribution limits will eliminate the outrageous fundraising advantage that independent expenditure committees (or “Super PACs”) enjoy in the post-Citizens United world. By reemphasizing the role of candidate campaigns, we will restore at least a modest degree of transparency and accountability at a time when both are in short supply in American politics.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 49
Keywords: election law, campaign finance, Citizens United, contribution limits, Super PACs
Date posted: December 13, 2012