Corporate Accountability

Senator McConnell v. the Founders

Most Americans think we need less money in politics, not more; less corruption and dependence on special interests, not more. Proposals by Senator Mitch McConnell and others to scrap limits on campaign contributions and allow politicians to solicit unlimited donations are wildly out of step with this common-sense view held by the people. They are also contrary to the wisdom of our Nation’s Founders.

Original research by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, submitted in a brief in the McCutcheon case by the Constitutional Accountability Center, shows that our country’s founders were deeply worried about officials or government institutions becoming dependent on special interests or big money. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers, our democracy should have representatives “dependent on the people alone” — and not, it bears noting, just the people who can afford to write big checks to politicians.

 

According to Madison, the people who were to elect the nation’s leaders — the people on whom these representatives should be properly dependent — were “not the rich, more than the poor.” Unfortunately, as Professor Lessig has explained, our system of campaign finance “distorts and destroys the intended dependence the framers gave us” by forcing elected officials to spend a huge chunk of their time dialing for dollars, calling on a “tiny slice of America” to raise campaign funds.

 

Scrapping contribution limits would only make this problem worse. With the aggregate contribution limits in place, politicians have to raise money from a wider range of contributors. If the aggregate contribution limits were eliminated, however, the number of people funding federal campaigns would get even smaller than it already is. And if all contribution limits were removed, politicians could focus on an even tinier percentage of the already tiny pool of campaign funders.

 

The Supreme Court has never — not even in what is perhaps the low-water mark of campaign finance jurisprudence, the Citizens United case — struck down federal campaign contribution limits as unconstitutional. And it shouldn’t do so here.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
September 9, 2025

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS—Fifth Circuit rejects petition challenging OCC authority to enforce national banking rules

Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw
The court distinguished the national banking regulatory regime from the SEC’s antifraud provision in Jarkesy and the...
Corporate Accountability
July 11, 2025

This Group’s Record in Front of the Roberts Court Is Mind-Boggling

Slate
In a provocative dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently called out her colleagues on the Supreme Court...
By: Ana Builes, Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...
Corporate Accountability
January 28, 2025

Federal Deposit Insurance as Jarkesy Waiver

Yale Journal on Regulation
An argument lurking just beneath the surface in a pending Fifth Circuit case could stem...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...