The Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this spring in McCutcheon v F.E.C., which increased the amount of money donors can contribute to political campaigns for federal office, has added new fuel to an 80-year-old debatebetween those who contend that the Supreme Court decides cases on the basis of abstract principles of law and those who argue that judicial rulings are based primarily on political and economic considerations.
Liberal critics of the Roberts court now draw a comparison between the court’s rulings in campaign finance cases like McCutcheon and Citizens United v F.E.C. (2010), both of which expand the ability of the rich to contribute to candidates, and decisions in two recent voting rights cases,Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), which imposed onerous voter-identification requirements, and last year’s Shelby County v. Holder, which overturned Department of Justice preclearance requirements in Southern states. Both of these decisions restrict the political influence of the poor and of minorities.
