Justin Levitt and Brad Smith are each top-flight thinkers about campaign finance who bring very different perspectives to issues in their field. Now a Professor at Loyola, Justin’s affiliations have included the Brennan Center for Justice. Brad, a Professor at Capital University Law School, founded and chairs his own Center, (the Center of Competitive Politics) and the two Centers are not at all alike in outlook or mission. Levitt and Smith have each recently written a piece—Levitt on the contribution/expenditure doctrine, Smith on the regulation of tax-exempt organizations—that, read side by side, track major, persistent disputes in political law. Each gets much right, but then overstates his case. For Levitt, his defense of regulation comes at the price of an understanding of the political costs. Smith is highly skeptical of regulation but in a way that gives short shrift to one complex regulatory goal that will not go away—public disclosure of certain kinds, and at certain levels, of spending to influence politics or policy.

Replying to a posting here, David Gans has responded with a confident defense of the brief he co-authored on behalf of Larry Lessig in the McCutcheon case. On the question of whether the aggregate limit is a contribution or expenditure limit, he has no doubt: it is an “easy” one, he writes. But how easy is it?

Among the briefs being filed with the Supreme Court in the pending test of aggregate contribution limits, McCutcheon v. FEC, Docket No. 12-536 (U.S. 2013), Professor Lawrence Lessig’s will draw its fair share of attention. Brief for Professor Lawrence Lessig as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellee, McCutcheon, Docket No. 12-536. In supporting these limits, he has introduced the Court to his “dependence corruption” theory of regulation. His choice to do so, in this case and in this way, may have been unwise, because whatever may be the theory’s utility or power in other contexts, it does not show especially well in this one.

One of the consolations of the contribution is its regulatory clarity; the permissible sources, the limits on amount, and the reporting requirements are all well established. And yet even contributions made in good order can cause trouble for the contributor—not with the Federal Election Commission, but in defending public corruption charges in the criminal justice system.

The distinction between contributions and expenditures—the first enjoying less constitutional protection than the latter—keeps its hold on campaign finance jurisprudence, for better or worse. Citizens United shows that the difference carries considerable continuing clout on major issues. It does supply courts with a familiar analytical tool that they can use to dispose, often simplistically, of complicated issues. For example, the Colorado Republican cases raise important questions about party activity, especially the relationship between candidates and their parties. By turning to the storied contribution/expenditure analysis, the Courts could dodge the hard issues and decide the case. What this analysis yielded was odd, however. Suddenly parties could spend money freely if “independently” on behalf of their candidates, while their routine support of the same candidates, in day to day contact with them, were effectively “contributions” and limited in amount.

The McCutcheon case (McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n, No. 12-536 (S. Ct. docketed Nov. 1, 2012)), testing the aggregate biennial contribution limits, is another example of a perplexing nature of the contribution/expenditure distinction.