The Wisconsin-based nonprofit litigation firm Law Forward and former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, opposing the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s efforts to dismantle federal campaign finance regulations, according to a Law Forward press release.
Law Forward’s policy counselor and attorney Rachel Snyder said the petitioners argue federal limits on how much a political party can coordinate spending with its own candidates are both unconstitutional under the First Amendment and pointless due to the presence of other regulations limiting donor contributions.
“One big misconception is that we’ve gone so far down the road of regulating that any limits we have now are pointless,” Snyder said.
Snyder said an amicus brief provides supplemental context and expertise to help the court make a well-informed decision.
Law Forward and Feingold filed the brief to highlight the need for thoughtful and well-developed regulation that ensures the voice of the average citizen is heard, Snyder said.
“Amicus urges the Court to recognize that Petitioner’s claim is part of a decades-long effort to eradicate all barriers against unlimited election contributions and spending,” the brief states. “For the sake of preserving our representative democracy and limiting corruption, the Court should reject that claim.”
The brief uses Wisconsin as a real-world example of what could unfold at the federal level if deregulation continues. Snyder referred to Gov. Scott Walker’s 2012 recall election and the John Doe investigations that followed. Snyder said Walker’s alleged illegal coordination with outside groups led to political turmoil and drastic changes in the state’s campaign finance laws by 2015.
Snyder said these changes resulted in a near-total deregulation of campaign finance in Wisconsin, allowing unlimited money to flood federal elections from both in-state donors and increasingly out-of-state billionaire donors.
“Candidates are currently in an environment where the political stem seeks the wealthiest donors,” Snyder said. “There’s a real risk that those candidates become less responsive to average voters who can’t give that kind of money.”
The perception of big-money dominance in elections undermines voter trust and can discourage voters from participating in political engagements overall, Snyder said.
If federal regulations on coordinating financial contributions from parties to candidates are revoked, then the regulations regarding limitations of individual donors to political parties are likely to be challenged next, Snyder said.
Snyder said rather than continuing down that path, the public should hold the line on the regulations we currently have. We should consider options for reform to reasonably limit the role of money in politics and help restore voters’ faith in the system and the responsiveness of their elected officials, Snyder said.
“Deregulation is not inevitable,” Snyder said. “If enough people continue to participate in the process, officials respond.”
