Shaun McCutcheon is in a legal battle with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). He believes that the FEC limit on individual political donations of a measly $123,200 diminishes his “core political speech.” His main argumentis that the current legislation “prevent[s] folks who want to get involved from having the same ability to get involved and support candidates that big union [Political Action Committees] have.” (1)

While Mr. McCutcheon has a valid point that the restrictions on political spending by individuals limit their rights to get involved with as much money as they might want to contribute, the limits are within reason to reduce the possibility of elections being bought by a small group of wealthy individuals. Is there corruption in the current system of PAC funding that allows unlimited donations to PACs and Super PACs, as long as the donor is revealed?  Certainly, it is politics after all, where the animal kingdom is dominated by snakes, rats and weasels. But corruption in one system does not provide an argument for the creation of other systems with equal or greater potential for corruption.

To quote Meredith McGehee, “if the Supreme Court sides with McCutcheon, all it will have done is open new routes for corruption without closing the old ones.”

Siding with McCutcheon will only increase the corruption that comes from unlimited funding. If McCutcheon wants to give more money he should stop wasting his time on legal fees and focus his resources on a Super PAC that reflects his views.

Citations:

(1) Mears, Bill. “Money and Politics High Court’s First Big Case This Term.” CNN. Cable News Network, 06 Oct. 2013. Web. 06 Oct. 2013.

“Quick Answers to General Questions.” Quick Answers-General Questions. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2013.

Image Citation:

“Getting Money Out of Politics: Putting the Public First.” Living Green Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2013.