From the whispery quiet of America's least gaudy, least visible, and least understood government institution came a shout last week.
Behind the stately white columns of the Corinthian building that is the home of the United States Supreme Court, the justices of the country's highest court reshaped the political landscape – not only for this autumn's 36 governor's races, 33 Senate races and 435 House races but also for American politics for many years to come.
The high court's decision is easily summarized (eliminating important limits on some political contributions) but its implication cannot be quickly ascertained.
On the surface, it assures the continued, and probably enhanced, big influence of big money on the big political contests in the United States.
But its other effects could be just as important, perhaps more so. The high court's decision underlines the notion, building gradually over the years, that political contributions are a form of political speech and thus protected by the First Amendment to the American Constitution. And it gives a boost to the major political parties, which have seen their influence wane as independent funding groups, eligible for unlimited and unreported contributions, have grown.
Those groups are not out of the game. They still can attract unlimited contributions, which accounts for the growth of so-called SuperPACs run by corporations and unions – amounting to about $108-million in political spending in 2013, according to the non-profit, non-partisan Sunlight Foundation, which found that last year more than half the total came from individuals, with another $19-million from unions and $7-million corporations.
That very likely will grow substantially in 2014, when so many important political contests are being conducted. The biggest prize: The Senate, where Democrats hold a 53-45 advantage, with two Independents (who often side with the Democrats). The Republicans hope they might capture the upper house in November, which would present a united opposition on Capitol Hill to President Barack Obama.
Last week's decision gives a huge boost to the two major parties, giving them the ability to shove massive amounts of money to states and congressional districts where their incumbents are under fire or where their challengers have excellent opportunities to prevail in tight contests.
But it does more than that. Because the amount of money flowing to the parties will increase substantially, so, too, will the role of party leaders as fund raisers – and as power brokers. These party leaders are the ones capable of playing host to the kind of public events and private meetings that will reap bigger contributions.
And those party leaders – and committee chairs, once the potentates of the legislative branch, now potentially restored to great power – will be out raising money for congressional races and will have the capacity to pump a lot of money into discrete campaign races. In battleground races, political candidates can expect much bigger spending underwritten by Washington. Overall the parties will have more resources.
"We will see much more money from the Washington lobbying community and the small group of millionaires and billionaires active in politics," says Anthony J. Corrado Jr., an expert on campaign finance who teaches at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. Overall, about 600 donors reached the old maximum spending limits on candidates and some 1700 reached the old limits on party contributions.
This decision also will increase the pressure on lobbyists and traditional campaign contributors. Until last week, these putative kingmakers had an out when approached by congressional and senate candidates that did not meet their tastes or ideological litmus tests: They could say that they had, in the phrase often bandied about the capital, "maxed out," meaning that their contributions had reached the federal ceiling and that they could not make further contributions. That two-word demurral, so useful in a pinch and so tactful in a difficult conversation, will go away. No longer can a lobbyist plead that he or she would love to help a candidate with a contribution –- but they've already reached their contribution limit.
Much is uncertain in the new political landscape the Supreme Court created with its decision last week. But there are two clear winners: Washington restaurants and caterers. For them, happy days are here again, and again, and again. Let the money roll, and rule.
David Shribman