4 | WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2013
THE CHRONICLE
Supreme Court to assess political donation caps by Robert Barnes THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court re-entered the controversial field of campaign finance Tuesday, agreeing to consider a Republican challenge to decades-old limits on the total amount a person can contribute to candidates, political parties and political action committees. It is the court’s first major campaign finance case since its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. By extension, the decision led to the creation of super PACs, whose multimillion-dollar donations transformed funding of the 2012 presidential contest. The new case, which will be heard in the court’s term that begins in October, concerns the federal limit on the amount an individual can contribute to certain campaigns during each election cycle. For 2013-14, that would be $123,200 — a maximum of $48,600 to federal candidates and $74,600 to political parties and some political action committees. Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama conservative activist and businessman, brought the lawsuit along with the Republican National Committee because he is seeking to contribute more than those amounts. He is not challenging the limit on the amount he can give to individual candidates, $2,600. A three-judge lower-court panel rejected McCutcheon’s contention that the aggregate limits were unconstitutionally low and overbroad. “It is not the judicial role to parse legislative judgment about what limits to impose,” the panel wrote. Those who favor limits on campaign contributions were alarmed by the Supreme Court’s decision to review the ruling. “It has become readily apparent that there are a number of justices who are willing to usurp Congress’ role as legislator when it comes to matter of campaign finance,” said Tara Malloy, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center.
“An aggregate contribution limit was passed in the wake of the Watergate money scandals and was upheld in the 1976 Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo.” Without the limits, she said in a statement, “corruption, or at the very least the appearance of corruption, would be the rule rather than the exception in Washington.” Fred Wertheimer, a longtime campaign finance advocate and president of Democracy 21, warned of multimillion-dollar contributions to political parties if the court were to toss out the limits. But Brad Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and an opponent of limits, said the Citizens United ruling may lead to the court’s re-examination of the Buckley v. Valeo decision, which justified contribution limits on anticorruption grounds. “The case gives the court an opportunity to clarify an important legal question: If contribution limits to individual committees and candidates prevent corruption, what additional interest justifies aggregate contributions?” Smith said in a statement. The Citizens United decision was a big boost to interest groups, weakening the ability of campaigns and parties to compete with them. There are no limits on the amount that individuals can contribute to super PACs. The challenge would restore some of the balance by removing restrictions on the political parties. It is part of a systematic challenge to campaign finance restrictions undertaken by Republicans and conservative interest groups. They have had considerable success with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.’s court, which has been suspicious of spending limits it has found hinder political speech. But even though Republicans have brought the challenge, the Democratic Party and its political action committees also would benefit from unfettered contributions. The case is McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
WEAPONS from page 3 defense systems would only be able to defend a relatively small area, he said. On the other hand, just 320 satellite interceptors could engage up to a 100 missile launches across the earth, regardless of their location. “They could protect from an accidental launch—for which there’s currently no defense,” he said. Morgan agreed with Dolman that the United States needs a defense in such cases, but the two men clashed the most over the feasibility of space weapons. “We agree with 90 percent of what each other says—it’s just a matter of nuance,” Morgan said. As a former air force officer who had tackled this topic for the Department of Defense, Morgan viewed space weapons as not being practical with current technology. For instance, he noted that a full space laser system could only shoot four to six missiles, adding that the effectiveness of the lasers depended on the time of day. “The enemy would know that,” he said. Morgan also noted the cost of such a program, giving the example of an orbital kinetic strike system made up of around 30 satellites that would drop a tungsten rod on its target. “A rod from God, as they’re called,” quipped Dolman. Morgan calculated that the entire program would total around $26 billion, with the cost of each rod at about $43 million. On the other hand, a more conventional method, employing B-2 bombers, would only cost around $25,000 a bomb. Under these conditions, Morgan said the program is not feasible. “Even if we can solve these hurdles, we
Make www.qduke.com your homepage!
DUKE MARINE LAB T I M L summer terms I and II Th
is i s
MARIN
uf Bea E LAB
get very little capability from these weapons,” Morgan said. “We have a lot of hurdles to overcome to get to weapons that are basically impotent.” Dolman argued that cost was relative and the systems could be used as a deterrent, adding that such a system itself would send a message. Nevertheless, both men saw space weapons as the next equivalent of the space race. “The thing that is so incredible about space is that it is the high ground,” Dolman said. “The earth is a single point of entry, you have to battle your way up. It’s an unflankable high ground.” Once a nation got there, he noted, it would be difficult to challenge. “We need to keep feeding money into this research,” Morgan said. “We don’t want to be the second nation to develop these weapons.” The event was the brainchild of junior Daniel Strunk who had researched space weapons policy for a project with senior Harry Liberman—who was also present at the event. Strunk and Liberman are current and former columnists for The Chronicle, respectively. Liberman said it was enlightening to hear about the science and logistics in this subject he had studied from a more diplomatic angle. “It’s interesting to see two people who base their lives on this point of policy that is so abstract for most people,” AHS secretary sophomore Anand Raghuraman said. Roland, the moderator, noted that although he had studied the topic in depth, both speakers presented new arguments he had not heard. “This issue will be very important in the coming decades,” said senior Ryan Boone, Duke Alexander Hamilton Society president.
,N ort
Scholarships Available!
C
GUIDELINES AND APPLICATION FORMS NOW AVAILABLE at www.duke.edu/APSI/grants/undergrads.html
for: Serena WuDunn Memorial Scholarship
Summer Term I Summer Term II
2013-14 undergraduate tuition awards
May 13 - June 14, 2013 July 8 - August 9, 2013
Hands-on education and research opportunities for all undergraduates at one of the nation’s premiere marine science facilities. NUMEROUS SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE!
DUKEMARINELABSUMMER.NET
Janet B. Chiang Grant Awards for undergraduate & graduate projects, and for need-based study in Asia
Contact: The Asian/Pacific Studies Institute 323A Trent Drive Hall email: mpmoore@duke.edu 919-684-5073
NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE
ENVIRONMENT
DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS: March 8, 2013