As we celebrate the semiquincentennial of America this year, the Supreme Court once again waited until the end of its term to release some of the most consequential decisions regarding its interpretations of the Constitution. The decisions ranged from upholding birthright citizenship to removing temporary protective status for Haitian immigrants to even refusing to hear Donald Trump’s appeal of a ruling that said he owed E. Jean Carrol $5 million for sexually assaulting her.
However, it would not be the Roberts Court if it did not rule on another case of campaign finances. Since SCOTUS’ infamous Citizens United decision in 2010, elections have never been more expensive. According to opensecrets.com, the 2024 election witnessed $14.8 billion in political contributions. The only election that cost more was 2020, at $18.3 billion. The worst part about this is contributions have resulted in favors once politicians get elected, applying to both sides.
However, the recent decision changes things a little bit. Now, political parties have unlimited spending to coordinate with federal candidates, a key difference from Citizens United, which allowed independent political expenditures to freely spend as long as they do not directly coordinate with candidates. What Citizens United did was allow individuals and corporations to give an endless supply of money to political action committees that are independent from candidates in order to sway elections; all of this was based on the idea that money is considered free speech. This applies for both sides, whether that be Elon Musk or George Soros.
Today, SCOTUS’ ruling has the ability to weaken PACs since political parties can now do the same thing but with the coordination of candidates. While that sounds great and dandy, it makes no positive reform to how much individuals and corporations are allowed to spend in elections. This will simply transfer the money spent in PACs and directly be given to parties. Change must occur, and soon.
A loophole would be to federally tax political spending after a certain limit. Political contributions are not tax deductible. It would be a good idea for Congress to set up a spending limit for political contributions that if they were to exceed the limit, an additional tax can be levied. A good start would be to tax every dollar over the initial limit at 300%. In this scenario, Elon Musk could spend about $300 million, but he would have to pay an additional $900 million in taxes to the government. This would be a classic example of changing fruitless behavior and influence peddling for the better.
Jack Teoli
Newhall
