Opinion: Soft landing for campaign reform

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

The Supreme Court had an end-of-term parting gift this week for those who believe the government has a legitimate role in alleviating the corrupting influence of money in politics. By a 6-3 vote, the court affirmed a lower court ruling upholding limits on “soft money” contributions to political parties.

In a suit brought by the Republican National Committee, a lower court noted that the Supreme Court had upheld soft money restrictions in light of “evidence showing that federal candidates and officeholders had solicited donations to their national party committees and that the national parties had sold access to federal officeholders and candidates in exchange for large contributions.” But in January the high court created doubts about whether it would adhere to that view when it struck down a ban on election spending by corporations. Some campaign reformers feared that decision was only the first swing of a wrecking ball aimed at campaign-finance laws.

On Tuesday the justices — for now at least — confounded that expectation. By a 6-3 vote, the court affirmed the lower court decision, though it didn’t issue its own opinion. That suggests that a majority of the court, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., is willing to preserve Congress’ ability to prevent the appearance or the reality of corruption arising out of huge contributions both to parties and to candidates. So reports of the death of all campaign reform may be highly exaggerated.

-- Michael McGough