Latest / DEEP INSIGHT / Supreme Court transforms campaign finance rules, lifting limits on party spending

Transcript

Supreme Court transforms campaign finance rules, lifting limits on party spending · DEEP INSIGHT

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: For more on the court six to three decision to
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: lift limits on how much political parties can spend in
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: coordination with its candidates, were joined by Rick Hassen's professor
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: of law and political science at UCLA. Rick, Welcome back
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: to the News Hour. Thanks for joining us.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: It's good to be with you.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: So Republicans were arguing the limits on these coordinated party
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: expenditures amounted to limits on free speech. What's your reaction
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court ruling of lifting those limits and
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: along ideological lines, Well, this is more.
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: Of the same. We've had the Supreme Court since the
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: twenty ten Citizens United case rule that campaign finance law
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: after campaign finance law is unconstitutional. Now, some of their
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: earlier rulings, like the ones in Citizens United, helped to
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: create super PACs which empowered outside groups. But the limits
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: on political parties they had the Supreme Court in its
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: deregulatory phase hadn't really tackled. And so what happened today
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: is the Court is giving political parties a leg up.
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: So now they'll be able to compete for large dollars
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: with those super PACs and can work more directly with candidates.
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: And the majority says this is going to be good
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: for democracy, because strong political parties are good for democracy.
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: I want to ask you more about the impact too,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: but in terms of who it may benefit. I want
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: to remind folks, this case is born of the then
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: Ohio Senate candidate Jade Vance's campaign. You've sued back in
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty two to challenge the limits. Republicans back the case.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: You know, the Trump administration when it came to power,
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: supported it. Does this ruling end up benefiting Republicans more
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: than Democrats?
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: In the short term, the ruling probably benefits Republicans more
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: than Democrats, simply because the Republican Party, the party opera
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: is like the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which was one
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: of the plaintiffs in this case. They've had an easier
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: time raising money this election cycle than their Democratic counterparts,
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: so they've got a head start. Even if people start
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: giving more to the Democratic Party. In the longer term,
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: I think we're going to see more parody between the parties.
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: So by the time we get to twenty twenty eight,
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: some of that super pac money, certainly not all of it,
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: but some of that super pac money that was going
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: to outside group supporting candidates will now flow through parties,
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: and that will give candidates more control over the message
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: and the communications that come from their campaigns.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: So in the more short term or medium term, even
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: as you look at the lead up to the midterm
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: elections in a practical way, when and how is this
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: going to show up? Where will people see that?
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: You know, the first people to see it are the
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: for profit television stations because now the political parties are
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: going to be able to get what's called the lowest
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: unit rate. They're going to be able to get the
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: cheapest advertising that candidates are entitled to. So we'll probably
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: to see more campaign advertising. It's going to show up,
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: probably more republican advertising because of that advantage I just
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: talked about in the short term. But eventually, I don't
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: think it's going to look all that different because already
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: we have such a deregulated system thanks to earlier decisions
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: of the Supreme Court. There's so much money flowing into
• 2:58
  Speaker 2: our politics today that it's hard to imagine that there's
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: going to be even more money. It's just going to
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: get shifted from some outside groups to some political parties.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: It's worth reminding of, folks, it wasn't always that way right.
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: It was after Watergate that a number of campaign finance
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: regulations went into place, specifically to lessen the influence of
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: money into politics, and then you've seen that erosion, as
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: you mentioned with the twenty ten Citizens United decision. Over time,
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: what has fundamentally changed about our campaigns and about our
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: elections as a result of the erosion of those regulations.
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: Well, I think what you're seeing now is a movement
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: towards a plutocracy. In twenty sixteen, there were no individuals
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: or couples who contributed at least one hundred thousand dollars
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: one hundred million dollars to political groups. In twenty twenty four,
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: there were nine such donors, so that just nine donors
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: alone were putting in nine hundred million dollars into the
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: last election. The Supreme Court fifty years ago, in Buckley
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: versus Lay, said that independent spending can't corrupt, and you
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: could only limit contributions to prevent corruption, which the Court
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: in more recent years has defined to be much more narrow,
• 4:10
  Speaker 2: like quid pro quo bribery. The Court moved ideologically to
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: the right, and it's now created an almost irregulated system
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: where we'll be lucky if in the next five years
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: we'll still have campaign contribution limits to candidates and campaign
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: disclosure rules.
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: We'll say more on that. Because there are still limits
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: on individual contributions, do you see based on what this
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: court has shown that those could potentially be challenged and
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: go away as well well.
• 4:35
  Speaker 2: So one thing I was looking for in the case
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: was whether the court was going to signal that they
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: were going to make it even harder for contribution limits
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: generally to be upheldan and the Court didn't do that today.
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: So right now, the limit that you could give thirty
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: five hundred dollars directly to a federal candidate for office,
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: that looks pretty safe. But the next thing I think
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: that's going to be attacked are rules that were put
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: in place in the McCain fine Gold Law in two
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: thousand and two, which bans so called soft money to
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: political parties. Once that opens up, you're going to see
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: political parties be able to draw in much much more money.
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: They're going to be able to spend that money, and
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: I think we're going to be back to the system
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: I think, in some ways worse than the pre Watergate system,
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: where the amount of money that's going to be put
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: in to try to influence people's votes and influence what
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: elected officials do once their in office is going to
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: continue to hit records.
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: That is Rick Hasen, Professor of Law and Political Science
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: at UCLA, joining us tonight. Rick, thank you so much.
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: Thank you support journalism you trust, Support PBS News. Donate now,
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: or even better, start a monthly contribution today