Supreme Court Ruling Further Threatens Free Elections
Press Release – April 2, 2014
Today’s five – four ruling of the United States Supreme Court in McCutcheon v Fed Election Comm’n, (No. 12-536) “continues down the dangerous path of putting federal elections up for auction to the highest bidder, a path condoned by Citizens United v FEC.” The court struck down, as invalid, limits placed by Congress on the total number of dollars one can give to all candidates for federal office in the aggregate per federal election cycle. The ruling leaves intact single-candidate limits. Domina spoke to students at the UNL College of Law, today.
Domina, expressed concern that the Court’s five-member majority “overtly, and unashamedly substituted its own judgment for that of the United States Congress, when it concluded that the Court’s analysis of the fit between the legislative objective to prevent quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, and the means selected to achieve the objective.”
Domina explained, in presentation to students at the University of Nebraska College of Law, today, that “the majority decision represents judicial activism at its height. The Court acknowledges that the objective of campaign-finance spending limitations is to prevent quid pro quo corruption, or the buying of congressional action. The Court ignores that those most knowledgeable about how such corruption might occur, i.e., members of Congress who worked daily where such efforts are made, clearly decided that the aggregate limitations will help prevent corruption and achieve the objective.”
“Yet, the five-member majority (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas), none of whom have campaigned for, or held significant elective office, believe they know better.” Domina said, this is “precisely the kind of judicial activism, or legislating from the bench, that Nebraskans despise”.
“I call on Nebraska’s current congressional delegation, and all its candidates for federal office to unanimously speak out against this judicial activism,” Domina said. Domina noted that, “one need not read beyond the first couple of pages of the majority opinion and page one of the dissent to see that the Court’s majority engaged in rank judicial legislating.”