SCOTT DETROW, HOST:
A big decision from the Supreme Court today on money in elections. In a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, the court overturned limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. Rick Hasen joins us now to help understand what this means. He's a law professor and directs the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA. Thanks for joining us.
RICK HASEN: Good to be back with you.
DETROW: The law at the center of this case is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Let's start with a quick reminder of what that law had done up until today.
HASEN: So it was a 1974 law that came after Watergate. It Imposed a whole series of contribution limits and spending limits. Over time, the Supreme Court has upheld some, struck down others. And this was another piece of that law that the court had upheld in 2001, but now changed its mind and struck down today.
DETROW: Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. He said these spending limits imposed on political parties are, quote, "a severe infringement on First Amendment-protected political speech." Help us understand the reasoning behind his ruling.
HASEN: Well, you know, ever since the Buckley decision back in 1976, the court has said that campaign finance limits implicate the First Amendment because people use their money for speech and for association. And so what the court said today was that limiting how much a party could spend and the contributions it receives while cooperating with candidates, that cannot be limited under the First Amendment. In the past, the court had said that if we allowed parties to take these contributions and work with candidates, it would be a conduit for corruption. And the court today said, no, there are enough other provisions that protect against corruption, and this limit goes too far.
DETROW: Is it fair to view this as part of a long-running series of rulings from the Roberts court loosening, eroding, ending campaign finance laws?
HASEN: Oh, I think that's absolutely true. So back in 2001, when the court upheld these limits, it was a narrow five-justice majority that was upholding all the campaign finance laws. But since the Roberts court came into play, they've struck down or limited every campaign finance law they've considered. And in fact, Justice Kavanaugh pointed to the creation of super PACs - which the Supreme Court was responsible for indirectly in Citizens United - as a reason to actually free the political parties so they could compete with these outside groups in putting out their campaign messages.
DETROW: What is left of campaign finance laws at this point?
HASEN: Well, there's disclosure, and so far, disclosure has held. Although you never know before this court because they've suggested that that could be too chilling for people - telling us who's behind the ads that we're seeing. And the other are contribution limits directly to candidates and to the parties. So you can't give more than $3,500 to a federal candidate right now. But if you want to support that candidate, you can give tens of millions of dollars to a super PAC and now you can give about a half a million dollars to a political party to help that candidate as well.
DETROW: You know, interestingly, you wrote today that you think this opinion could make the campaign finance system better. Tell me why.
HASEN: Well, the idea is that super PACs are the most unaccountable groups. They can rise and fall. They don't have a brand name they need to protect, like the Democratic or Republican Party. And so this strengthens political parties as against the super PACs because now people can send more money through the parties. I'm skeptical that it's actually going to make things better, but I don't think it actually makes things worse. What would really make a change would be for the Supreme Court to completely change its jurisprudence in this area, and that's not happening with these justices on the court.
DETROW: Do you expect those basic campaign finance limits to fall at some point, given the last couple decades?
HASEN: Well, it's possible, but they've passed on the opportunity to change things. Even today, they could have applied what's known as strict scrutiny, which would have meant that almost all campaign contribution limits would fall. They declined to do that today, so I think those limits on money going directly to candidates are likely to survive at least for the next few years. The thing that might fall are the soft money limits, which were part of the McCain-Feingold law back in 2002. And that would allow even more money to flow through parties and essentially further deregulate the campaign finance system.
DETROW: Republicans were the ones challenging this case. President Trump celebrated its win. Do you see this as a square win for Republicans, or do you think this is something both parties will quickly be taking advantage of?
HASEN: Well, in the short term, Republicans are likely to gain because their party committees have raised a lot more money than Democratic committees. But I think in the longer term, you're going to see big donors who had been sending money to super PACs - they're going to start routing money through the party as well. But of course, the Democratic Party has to convince its donors that they're worthy of getting those contributions. So we'll have to see how things go. But right now, the Republicans have a good head start.
DETROW: That is Rick Hasen, professor at UCLA School of Law. Thank you so much for talking to us.
HASEN: It's been a pleasure. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
