While it’s an open question how much new money will come in, it’s certain some will. Big donors fear shakedown

The biggest Washington donors used to have a great excuse to keep their wallets closed when fundraisers came knocking: Sorry, I’m maxed out.

But a Supreme Court ruling swiped that line from them Wednesday when the justices tossed a rule that limited how much an individual can give to candidates, party committees and PACs.


Now, fundraisers hope donors, many of them lobbyists, will embrace their new legal right with gusto to give more across the board to candidates and party committees.

“I’m horrified, planning to de-list my phone number and destroy my email address,” said Ken Kies, who, along with his wife, has bumped up against the federal political contribution limits. “What I was really hoping for is a ban on lobbyists making contributions entirely.”

( Also on POLITICO: Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign giving limits)

While it’s an open question how much new money will come in, it’s certain some will — and insiders are eager to make sure it greases the Washington economy.

“I’m poor again as a result,” joked Tony Podesta, a top lobbyist and major donor who is among the small number of K-Streeters who contribute nearly the maximum amount to candidates each election cycle. “The fundraising consultants are the only winner in today’s decision.”

Podesta said for those donors, the new rule “eliminates an excuse that people have to say I’m done for the cycle and I can’t do anymore, which means that people who do max out will end up giving more money than they used to to candidates.”

The Supreme Court decision Wednesday is the latest in a line of rulings that loosen campaign finance rules and embolden the consultant class. Lobbyists are hit up for donations from campaign staff and members of Congress all the time. Now, it could just get worse they fear.

( Read the Supreme Court opinion)

“We were already getting drained before, now it’s another means to suck out more cash without any actual return on value,” said one GOP lobbyist.

Roughly 600 donors maxed out on aggregate federal contributions during the 2012 election, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that total, about 160 were from Washington, Virginia, Maryland and New York — an indication that the decision could lead to more contributions from K Street and Wall Street.

Federal law had capped the total amount a single donor could give at $48,600 to candidate committees and $74,600 in contributions to PACs and party committees in each two-year cycle. Donors still can give only $5,200 per candidate and $32,400 to each party committee in the 2014 cycle.

Lobbyists argue they are already inundated by fundraising calls from lawmakers, email solicitations and events that fill their calendars for breakfasts, lunches and dinners in the run-up to the quarterly deadlines.

( Also on POLITICO: SCOTUS on money and politics: A reader’s guide)

“For the lobbying community, it increases the cost of doing business,” said David Rehr, a former association executive.

And the timing is particularly frustrating for some following the first-quarter filing deadline Monday.

“At this time in the cycle many lobbyists have hit or are quickly approaching the federal max,” said David Thomas of Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti. “This decision is like getting to the end of the Marine Corps Marathon and being told you have to run it again.”

On Capitol Hill the reaction was decidedly mixed with most Republicans cheering the decision.

( WATCH: Anna Palmer on 'Driving the Day')

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) hailed the decision saying that “freedom of speech is being upheld,” though not all Republicans were supportive of the result.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), author of a 2002 ban on soft-money contributions, said he “wasn’t surprised” by the ruling, but warned that it would have negative long-term repercussions.

“There will be scandals because of this, I guarantee it,” McCain warned.

( WATCH: Open Mike with political 'data scientist' Alex Lundry)

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) wasted no time, introducing legislation Wednesday that would require all contributions of $1,000 or more be filed with the Federal Election Commission within 48 hours.



While Democrats publicly bashed the decision, they were far more positive in private. One top Hill Democrat suggested Democrats had larger number of donors, and they can now go back and ask these supporters for even more money.

And though they may not be happy about it — several big Democratic donors said they would take advantage of the new rules.

David DesJardins, who gave nearly $1 million to Democratic candidates and outside groups in the 2012 election said the decision will “significantly increase my direct giving to candidates.”

DesJardins, who believes the decision is bad for democracy, predicted that it will further increase the “incentive for politicians to focus on a small number of super-wealthy donors, rather than the general public.”

Many operatives said the case will strengthen the party committees that have struggled with the rise of super PACs.

Indeed, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus initially dreamed up the lawsuit when he was dialing for dollars in 2011, trying to pay off the debt accrued by his predecessor, Michael Steele.

“The place that this began was at an RNC in 2011 that was trying to figure out how to pay bills while many donors were conditioned and committed to other committees,” Priebus said. “We basically financed the case in the beginning to the end.”

Asked if they will bring on more staff or he will spend more time on the phone circling back with donors, he said: “That’s a natural assumption, but keep in mind that some of our own regular givers to our RNC, because of aggregate limits, were tapped out. Now we can go back to those folks and say, ‘We’ve got wonderful news here, you are able to help out the RNC again.’ I’m sort of saying it tongue-in-cheek, but the truth is there are people who couldn’t help everyone and wanted to.”

“There are and will be a significant amount of people who couldn’t give to the RNC because of aggregate limits who will now be interested in helping us out.”

Charlie Spies, a top GOP fundraiser for several outside groups, said that political parties are a stabilizing force in the political system.

“To the extent this decision weakens super PACS, that is good for our overall political discourse and makes it more likely that Congress is able to pass legislation,” Spies said.

Still, super PAC operatives maintain that the decision won’t have a huge impact on their strategy.

Veteran Republican donor Fred Malek, who is involved with the Congressional Leadership Fund, doesn’t expect super PACs and other groups’ resources to dry up.

“I don’t believe this will divert much, if any, from the outside groups,” Malek said in an email. “Besides megadonors, this will also [incentivize] donors who by practice do not participate with outside groups. So the total pie grows.”

Ali Lapp said she doesn’t expect the decision to take away money from the House Majority PAC even though many top Democratic donors were hesitant to embrace super PACs early on in the 2012 cycle and supported traditional party committees and PACs instead.

“We don’t have a lot of people giving to us because they maxed out the aggregate contribution limit,” Lapp said. “There might be a small handful of donors. But it’s not like we’re going back to the drawing board on our budget.”

John Bresnahan and James Hohmann contributed to this report.