On Monday, the Supreme Court once again upheld crucial elements of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law that prevents state and local party committees from being used to funnel unlimited money into federal elections.
The federal government has done virtually nothing to enforce rules requiring political advertisers to publicly disclose who is funding their campaigns — one of the last defenses remaining against the corruptive influence of wealth in politics.
Ethics mavens have continually criticized members of the Trump administration for their habit of promoting the president’s private businesses while on the job. A recent State Department blog post — that has since been taken down — on Mar-a-Lago came dangerously close to an advertisement for buying the president's favor.
In McCutcheon v. FEC, four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court described the government’s interest in passing campaign finance laws in terms of “electoral integrity” but did not fully flesh out what the concept might mean for this area of law.
Our new online database of empirical evidence on money in politics is a valuable resource for social science and legal research, and provides reformers and policy makers with the facts necessary to advance reasonable campaign finance regulation.