Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter testifies during a Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on artificial intelligence and the future of elections on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Sept. 27, 2023.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The Supreme Court struck down limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates in a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines. The ruling is the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions that have loosened campaign finance restrictions, overturning a 2001 precedent that upheld the spending limits.
Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, who now serves as president of the Campaign Legal Center, joined NPR’s Morning Edition to break down the ruling. Speaking to NPR’s Michel Martin, Potter discussed why the court reversed its earlier precedent, how the ruling changes campaign finance rules and whether greater transparency could address concerns about corruption.
Listen to the full interview by clicking on the blue play button above. And read takeaways from the conversation below.
The post-Watergate limits were meant to prevent corruption
Potter said they were designed to stop donors from routing large contributions through national party committees to directly fund a favored candidate’s campaign. The restrictions were intended to prevent “an obvious way around” campaign contribution limits.
The court previously upheld the same limits
Asked why the Supreme Court upheld the law about 20 years ago, Potter said the justices concluded the restrictions were a constitutional way to prevent corruption. He said the court viewed them as an “anti-circumvention measure” to stop donors from using political parties to bypass contribution limits.
Potter rejects the majority’s rationale
Potter rejected the majority’s view that political parties have less political power than outside groups, saying earlier Supreme Court decisions allowing unlimited outside spending created that imbalance. He pointed to Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent in support of that argument.
Disclosure wouldn’t necessarily reveal private fundraising arrangements
Potter said disclosure alone would not address his concerns because it cannot reveal private agreements between candidates and donors. While campaign donations to political parties are public, he said voters would not see behind-the-scenes requests from candidates asking donors to contribute to party committees that later support their campaigns.
“We’re never going to see that,” Potter said. “I don’t think there’s a way to practically disclose those backroom deals.”
This interview was written for the web by Majd Al-Waheidi and edited by Treye Green.
