Campaign finance reform has been a burning topic for decades in the United States. From elections to Congress and to the White House and to state legislatures and governors houses, American politicians are required to raise millions of dollars to fight for a nomination from their parties and then to win the election itself. The power of the donors and the I-owe-you obligations of the winning candidates became the ugly face of politics in the world’s oldest democracy. The US Congress has put in place laws to regulate campaign funding, and it is a part of this legal limitation that Shaun McCutcheon has challenged. He contended that the “aggregate limit”, that is the total amount he can contribute to candidates in a two-year election cycle, violates his right to speech.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr in his majority opinion agreed and held the law enacted by the Congress on ‘aggregate limits’ to be unconstitutional. Roberts, a political conservative appointed by President George W Bush in 2005, argued that “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.” The dissent judgment was delivered by Justice Breyer who held that the issue of limits on funding involved both the right to speech and the equally important aspect of “political integrity of…governmental institutions.”

This is an interesting clash of judicial perspectives which should have a resonance in India where money power is seen as one of the diabolical distortions of electoral politics. While in the US there is a limitation on how much individuals can contribute to candidates and parties, the Election Commission places limits on the poll expenditure of the candidates. The ceilings or caps are seen as necessary restrictions by those who want to minimise money power in fighting elections.

The American and Indian ways of election funding and expenditure pose serious challenges to the democratic system, and it is something that needs to be debated and argued over constantly. The US Supreme Court judgment only reveals the issues at stake. There is a need for the balancing of conflicting freedoms and values. The anxiety in India about undue influence of money power is a compelling one.  The solutions that are suggested, for example state funding of elections, may not always be the best ones on offer.

The reality seems to be that the rich people might seem to be exerting disproportionate influence in a democratic polity but it is not possible for either the politicians or their rich donors to subvert the will of the majority in an election. Poll verdicts show that those with the most money do not necessarily have their way, and that it is the majority which determines the electoral outcome. This does not mean that we do not need laws to check money power, but there is a need to be on guard against overzealous legislation or regulation that will choke the system. A better way would be to keep the issue under constant public scrutiny and hear diverse and opposing views on it.