The historical record is replete with colorful examples of the Framers rejecting quid pro quo corruption, such as when Benjamin Franklin was required to seek permission from Congress to keep a bejeweled snuff box given to him by King Louis XVI.
And while the Framers couldn’t have predicted our modern era of super PACs and cryptocurrency schemes, they empowered Congress to respond to new threats. In 1971, Congress did exactly that when it passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which sets limits on contributions to candidates. FECA also limits expenditures by national political party committees made in coordination with their federal candidates, recognizing that these expenditures function as direct contributions to candidates. In 2001, the Supreme Court upheld this FECA provision, explaining that coordinated party expenditures “are as useful to the candidate as cash.” Notwithstanding that, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and two legislators, including then-Senator J.D. Vance, challenged FECA’s coordinated party expenditure limits in a case called NRSC v. FEC.
We filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court that explained that unlimited coordinated party expenditures would increase the kind of opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the Framers were concerned about, and on Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case. Unfortunately, the conservative supermajority on the Court showed little interest in this rich historical record. As CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen explained in a press release, “the Court’s conservatives asked not a single question about how the Federal Election Campaign Act’s cap on coordinated party expenditures fits into that national tradition.” Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans added that “the Roberts Court has repeatedly disregarded the Constitution’s text and history, obliterated the foundational interest in rooting out corruption and ensuring integrity in government, and harmed our democracy by opening the door to unlimited spending by billionaires and corporations.”
Of course, NRSC v. FEC is unfortunately hardly the only example this year of why we’re concerned about corruption. Indeed, our Constitution’s safeguards against corruption have been under attack from all directions this year as the Trump Administration has engaged in unprecedented conflicts of interest. Not long after President Trump took office, House GOP leaders set the tone for the new administration’s constant blurring of the lines between Trump’s own finances and his role as President by hosting a retreat at the struggling Trump National Doral Golf Club. As CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes explained in the Washington Post, “I think anytime we have large institutions, whether it’s a political party, whether it’s one body of Congress, that doesn’t take anti-corruption seriously, I think it’s always concerning.” Later in the spring, CAC President Elizabeth Wydra joined NPR’s Planet Money podcast to discuss how the “$TRUMP” meme coin created new opportunities for untoward influence on the Administration. The list could go on and on.
As new attempts to ignore or overturn anti-corruption safeguards emerge, the Constitutional Accountability Center will push for greater accountability—both in the courts and in the public discourse.
