McCutcheon v. FEC: Writing a letter to the editor

Once again, the Supreme Court has confused speaking and spending, and come down on the “right” of people with extreme amounts of money to buy candidates, party committees, and politicians. In a 5-4 decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the court has overturned aggregate contribution limits—the total that an individual could donate to federal candidates, a national party committee, and non-party political committees.

Will the end result be “more democracy?” Hardly. Look for the vast majority of Americans to feel more cynical about their elected officials and shut out of debate. And look for a very few fat cats gaining even more power over elections, government and policies—from where and when our kids go to war, to the state of our safety net, to how our tax dollars are collected and spent. Once upon a time these decisions were made with at least some respect for what the Constitution calls “the general welfare” of our country. Now the guiding principle will be ensuring short-term profits for well-connected donors.

Writing a letter to the editor about this case and why it is a disaster for democracy can help build a movement to take back government from corporations and ensure that the freedom of speech is not just the freedom to spend. Here are some pointers and “talking points,” as well as a list of online resources.

First, check your local newspaper’s letters column for maximum word count, deadlines, or other guidelines.

Name names! If you can work a reference to your members of Congress into the letter, their staff will notice it—they often keep a tally of public opinion on issues and are likely to pay attention when they are called out directly to take a stand.

Here’s some talking points—put them in your own words:

  • What we need islessbig money in our elections, not more.Removing limits on spending will not magically create “more democracy.” What it will do is promote more divisiveness and partisan gridlock.
  • The Constitution says “We the People,” and ever since, people have been working through grassroots movements like labor, civil rights, and gender equality to make that statement a reality. This decision undoes the work of those movements, which have helped and inspired so many people.
  • When spending limits fall, all candidates are pressured to play along to have any chance at winning an election.
  • Big money donations increase the chance of corruption. How can elected officials ignore the requests of high dollar donors, especially if they want to keep a seat they already have?
  • When it takes tens of thousands of dollars to run for the state legislature, a usual “first step” toward Congress or a governorship, its the candidates that most truly represent the middle class and the working poor that will be shut out.
  • The existing aggregate limit—roughly $123,000—was generous enough. It’s more than doublethe median household income in our country.
  • The Citizens United decision, also a misapplication of the concept of free speech, has been consistently opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans, regardless of political party affiliation. That’s why sixteen states and hundreds of towns, cities, counties, and legislative districts have supported resolutions overturning Citizens United through constitutional amendment.
  • Congress must pass an amendment to the Constitution saying that money is not speech, and its spending in campaigns can be regulated, and that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people. This amendment would overturn Citizens United, allow robust campaign finance regulation, and help restore integrity to our elections.

Let us know if your letter gets published—we’d like to share it online! Email Barbara at , and include a weblink if possible!

If you’d like more information on the case, here’s some resources:

  • Demos Foundation: “Stop the Next Citizens United”
  • Federal Election Commission summary of the case:
  • Summary of the case from Open Secrets:
  • Also some data on donations:
  • And some potential outcomes from throwing off spending limits:

(Thanks to Laura Gang, John Hill, and others at Greater Boston Move to Amend for providing some of these resources and talking points!)