Public Citizen attempts to make the case that the Supreme Court's pending decision in McCutcheon could, if wrongly decided, unleash a flood of money with the probable effect of corrupting the political process. The argument is the one heard before in briefs and in oral argument about joint fundraising committees. A donor who gives to a joint fundraising committee can write a check for millions, to be apportioned within the limits among all the joint fundraising participants. Public Citizen warns against "naïveté": the more “practical” view it urges is that the officeholder who solicits for the joint fundraising committee risks corruptive indebtedness to the donor.

As noted here Wednesday, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board is stymied by the question of whether an independent committee can have contact with a candidate and remain “independent” and able to make unlimited expenditures on the candidate’s behalf. The anonymous candidate seeking an opinion from the Board would like to raise money for a committee that intends to help him or her, later, on an “independent” basis. Under federal law, and subject to conditions, this is possible if the candidate has no say in how the money is spent. Reform critics think this result is indefensible. Their view of independence is that it requires complete separation of the candidate from the committee.

Minnesota campaign finance officials are "vexed" by a request for an advisory opinion from an unnamed candidate. She (or he) would like to raise money for an independent expenditure committee that intends to support her—with independent expenditures. Minn. campaign board vexed by candidate's question regarding fundraising by outside groups, Star Tribune, Nov. 5, 2013, http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/230680961.html. Does this fundraising support make the committee any less independent and unable to spend unlimited sums on her behalf?

The following was posted on the the National Constitution Center's Constitution Daily blog at  http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/11/the-mccutcheon-case-hard-money-soft-money-and-now-something-in-between/. 

Campaign finance regulation in the United States is complex, and judges have begun to complain about it. Most famously, Justice Kennedy spoke about the proliferating and abstruse rules in his opinion for the Court in Citizens United. At oral argument in a recent case, Justice Scalia suggested that no one really understood the law. The complexity of campaign finance rules is not just the handiwork of the regulators: the Court’s own doctrine can be hard to fathom. Once there was supposedly a clear distinction between “contributions” and “expenditures,” but this is no longer quite the case. And the line that once separated legal, clean “hard money” from illegal “soft money” may soon be harder to discern, after the Court has decided the pending case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

Professor Pamela Karlan would have the Supreme Court be more attentive to the impact of its decisions on the current pathologies of American politics. She points out how cases like the one the Court will decide shortly here on recess appointments bear directly on the capacity of the government to function. See Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Canning, No. 12-1281 (S. Ct. docketed Apr. 25, 2013). Then, toward the end of her piece, Karlan ties in campaign finance reform. The Court's decisions on political spending can either “lower the temperature” of contemporary politics or further inflame it. Karlan sees the court as performing poorly on this score in the past, as in Citizens United, and as poised to make the same mistake in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.