Campaign-finance cases to watch

At least a half-dozen major campaign-finance cases winding their way through the courts have the potential to shake up the political landscape in the vein of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling — or the more recent McCutcheon decision — forcing major changes in the way campaigns are financed and run.

They could get a sympathetic hearing from the high court as its conservative majority has been sensitive to the free-speech concerns raised by a band of activist conservative lawyers and groups that have emerged as a major legal force in the fight to deregulate campaign finance.


“If you have a court that looks pretty much like it is today, I think you’ll see continued deregulation,” said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which advocates for fewer restrictions on campaign spending and is involved in a number of ongoing lawsuits on campaign finance. “There are a lot of laws on the books that make no sense at all. A lot of them are going to fall.”

( Also on POLITICO: The 10 states that could decide the next Senate)

Here’s POLITICO’s look at the top campaign-finance cases to watch:

1. Political parties may get their own super PACs

Right now, super PACs, which can raise unlimited amounts of cash, must be truly independent of candidates and parties — run by outside consultants who cannot coordinate on strategy or messaging. Partially because of that, several super PACs, as well as related nonprofit groups, such as Karl Rove’s Crossroads network, the House and Senate super PACs started by veteran Democratic operatives and the network of nonprofits founded by oil magnates Charles and David Koch, have emerged as shadow parties.

Both the Republican and Libertarian parties are involved in separate lawsuits before the D.C. Circuit Court that ask for the right to start an in-house super PAC. That super PAC arm would still need to be run by an independent staff that’s not allowed to talk to other party employees about strategy or messaging but would have the blessing and imprimatur of a major political party and would be run by operatives on the party’s payroll.

( Also on POLITICO: New video surfaces of Obamacare architect)

Even some Democratic insiders — who are publicly committed to robust campaign-finance reform and limiting the influence of money in elections — privately say that success in the RNC lawsuit could be better than the status quo where parties have to play by an entirely different set of rules than freewheeling outside groups.

“The system is f—ked,” said one Democratic operative. “This might be a way to un-f—k it.”

2. More secret money?

Some of the biggest fights in the election law arena are about disclosure. Super PACs are required to reveal their donors in public reports. But since 2010, free-spending nonprofit groups have increasingly become the favorite tool of big donors who want to remain anonymous.

Those nonprofits aren’t allowed the same freedom as super PACs — they generally stick to issues advertising without calling for the express election or defeat of a candidate. But increasingly, courts are looking at what nonprofits are allowed to do.

( Also on POLITICO: Gallup: Dems plunge to record low)

Citizens United, the group that won the eponymous 2010 Supreme Court decision, has challenged a Colorado law forcing it to disclose the donors behind a documentary film “ Rocky Mountain Heist.” The 10th U.S. Circuit Court sided with the group last month, saying it did not have to comply with a state law mandating disclosure of donors in producing a document film.

3. Limits too low?

Even if there’s a ceiling on how much people can give, there is a question as to whether those limits are too low.

In Montana, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that Big Sky Country needs a higher ceiling.

The state caps donations for governor and lieutenant governor at $650. Candidates for other statewide offices are limited to collecting $320 per donor, while state legislative candidates face a donation limit of $170.

That’s well below the federal limits of $2,600 per election — and far below the limits in most other states.

4. Buy a judge?

Many state judges across the country who are elected to their positions face special restrictions on their fundraising and campaign spending. Some are even prohibited from soliciting funds for their own campaigns, said David Mitrani, a Democratic campaign-finance lawyer with the firm Sandler Reiff.

Meanwhile, super PACs and independent groups can do whatever they like. “It’s absolutely an uneven system,” Mitrani said.

In a case set to be argued this term, Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, the court will consider the case of a Florida judicial candidate Lanell Williams-Yulee, who was charged with professional misconduct for trying to raise money for her own campaign.

More than three dozen states elect many judicial offices — and more money is likely to flow into that system if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff.

5. Wall Street may play a bigger role in financing elections

Republicans also are pushing to unshackle Wall Street political contributions.

The Republican parties of New York and Tennessee sued this year to overturn a 2010 Obama administration rule that caps donations from financial firms and their employees at $700 per election cycle — but only to state officials who are campaigning for federal office, as well as state political parties. That’s well below the $5,200 that all other citizens are allowed to kick in to candidates.

The plaintiffs say the rule puts some candidates at a major disadvantage. For example, GOP Senate candidates Thom Tillis in North Carolina and Joni Ernst in Iowa are both sitting state officials who were affected by the rule capping financial firm fundraising. Their opponents Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) and Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), respectively, had a major fundraising advantage in that they can take much more from financial interests.

And with GOP governors like New Jersey’s Chris Christie and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker eyeing presidential runs, caps on their ability to take Wall Street cash could also put them at a big disadvantage.

The case was dismissed on the technical grounds last month, but will most likely end up back in court at some point in the future.

6. Free the contractors!

Government contractors on the federal payroll are forbidden by law from donating to parties, campaigns and PACs. But at a late September hearing, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case seeking to overturn the 74-year-old ban.

Many of the judges in the 11-person panel expressed concern that Congress hasn’t moved to limit employee contributions and by donations from owners of companies with government contracts. The court also expressed concern about the use of loopholes by contractors to get around the ban.

“This statute doesn’t come close to meeting the court’s test that there be a substantial match between the goals and the means chosen to effectuate them,” said Alan Morrison, the lawyer who represents the plaintiffs in the case, during the hearing.