The Supreme Court will take up a question asked by almost no one else: can Americans give enough money to political candidates?
The Supreme Court already exacerbated a corrupted system in their infamous "Citizens United" case in 2010, which allowed Super PACs to collect unlimited money to support a candidate, as long as the Super PAC does not coordinate with the candidate's campaign, but this restriction has turned into a blatant farce.*
Now the Supreme Court is thinking of a new way to gut campaign finance laws, and this one may actually be bigger than Citizens United. A case brought by Shaun McCutcheon of Alabama and the Republican National Committee. They are arguing that it's unconstitutional to stop a donor from giving more than $46,200 to political candidates and $70,800 to political committees and PACs. Instead, McCutcheon wants to be able to give the maximum $2,500 to as many candidates as he wants.
What would that mean? Well, each election cycle, every member of the House of Representatives and about 33 Senators are up for reelection. Let's say McCutcheon picked his preferred candidate in each race, and gave each one the maximum $2,500. What would that add up to?
Instead of $46,200.
This, even more than Citizens United, could push the political sway of the richest Americans to new depths. What's worse, the Supreme Court didn't have to take up this case. A Court of Appeals upheld the restriction, but the Supreme Court decided to give it a look, meaning that there is a good chance they may be looking to truly release the hounds on America's campaign finance system.
*In more than one Republican presidential bid in 2012, campaign workers left the official candidate's campaign to work at the Super PAC supporting that candidate. Furthermore, a PAC, which may legally work with an official campaign, can be run by THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE as a Super PAC, which is not officially allowed to support a campaign.