It’s been four years since the controversial decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, which allowed corporate spending on elections.  Last week, the Supreme Court reminisced to 2010 and handed down an opinion that has the potential to muddy America’s political landscape and open the door even further to corruption in the system.

In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Committee, Shaun McCutcheon, a businessman from Alabama, argued against the constitutionality of an aggregate limit on campaign donations.  He felt he should be able to donate the maximum amount to as many candidates as he pleases.  As long as he doesn’t exceed the limit for individual candidates, he felt there should be no limit to how much he donates.

The Court ruled 5-4 in McCutcheon’s favor.  This decision, while unsurprising given the makeup of the Court and the Citizens United decision, is still cause for concern.

The main argument against McCutcheon’s position is the possibility of corruption within the elected officials.  If a person can give an unlimited amount, he would have a greater chance of acquiring unfair influence with public servants.

This seems a lot like common sense.  Chief Justice John Roberts apparently disagrees.

According to Roberts, the definition of “corruption” is a quid pro quo deal between a donor and an individual candidate.  A quid pro quo act, in this context, is a direct exchange of money for a specific political action.  So Roberts feels that unless blatant bribery occurs, there is no constitutional support for contribution limits.

Roberts’ faith in people is endearing, but too naive for a Supreme Court Chief Justice.  The reality is now that these massive donations are possible, it will be much easier for one wealthy donor to garner significant influence in our government.

There have been two common responses to this concern, though neither has much support.  The first is that there aren’t a significant number of potential donors that this ruling will affect — the super rich are few and far between.

This is a valid point, but not a successful defense.  For one thing, the Spectrum Research Group recently released figures putting the current number of millionaires living in America at 9.63 million.  While small in respect to the overall population, this figure is not insignificant when compared to the number of voters.

In addition, all it takes is one.  We could have decades where people have pure intentions and no officials are corrupted, quid pro quo or otherwise.  However, if there is even one occurrence of an individual behind the scenes playing puppet master with America’s political elite, it could have catastrophic results.

The second way conservatives have been arguing against donations causing corruption is by saying it’s a good thing. Roberts himself addressed the idea and discussed it as an acceptable and normal part of the political system. Any influence an individual may gain from massive, party-wide donations would simply be a justified reward. Such a donation would be that citizen’s way of getting involved; after all, America runs on citizen-involvement.

One other thing it runs on? Votes.

The entire political system is designed to give all citizens equal representation in their government.  That’s why there are only two senators per state regardless of population.  If Shaun McCutcheon wants to have a say in what his elected officials are doing, he should have to rely on his votes like everybody else.

With this decision, the Supreme Court is again backing a system that provides an unfair advantage to the wealthy.  It’s only a matter of time before the idea becomes permanent.

Chris Piemonte is a senior political philosophy major. He can be reached at [email protected].

Published on April 8, 2014 at 1:00 am