Joshua A. Douglas
Jeff Mason is a White House Correspondent for Reuters and the 2016-2017 president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. He was the lead Reuters correspondent for President Barack Obama's 2012 campaign and interviewed the president at the White House in 2015. Jeff has been based in Washington since 2008, when he covered the historic race between Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Jeff started his career in Frankfurt, Germany, where he covered the airline industry before moving to Brussels, Belgium, where he covered the European Union. He is a Colorado native, proud graduate of Northwestern University and former Fulbright scholar.
Twitter handle: @jeffmason1
Most political observers say that Tuesday’s elections were a referendum on Donald Trump or a signal of what will happen in 2020. “The results across the country represent nothing less than a stinging repudiation of Trump on the first anniversary of his election,” wrote The Washington Post, in a typical statement of the conventional wisdom. True, the Democrats did well, picking up state legislative seats from Georgia to New Hampshire, including a massive swing of at least 15 seats in Virginia, as well as the governorships in Virginia and New Jersey.
Throughout the 2016 presidential primaries, voters trying to cast a ballot have faced significant hurdles on election day.
Tuesday's oral argument in McCutcheon v. FEC http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/07/29/the-framers-on-campaign-finance-law-via-tumblr/, the latest high-profile campaign finance case, will likely generate familiar storylines about a fiercely ideological Supreme Court, where one justice drives the outcome of a close 5-4 decision. Public perception of the Supreme Court is that there are four conservatives, four liberals and Justice Anthony Kennedy in the middle - as the "swing" vote. But that's wrong - at least where voting rights and campaign finance cases are concerned. Though Kennedy's vote dictates some outcomes when the court is split 5-4 along ideological lines, another justice has been the driving force behind current election law http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/supreme_court_on_the_voting_rights_act_chief_justice_john_roberts_struck.html jurisprudence. In this matter, it is truly Chief Justice John 'Robertss court http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71895.html. Since Roberts became chief justice in 2005, the court has issued 23 written opinions involving voting rights, redistricting or campaign finance. Roberts is the only justice who has been in the majority every time. In addition, he has written twice as many majority opinions in this field as any other justice - six, as compared to Kennedy's three. Roberts has now written more than 25 percent of the election law decisions handed down since he joined the court. He has also likely influenced the language on many others. Seven of the 23 election law cases were decided "per curiam," or without a publicly-disclosed author because they are "by the court" as a whole. So Roberts may also have had a hand in drafting these opinions. As chief justice, Roberts assigns the opinion writer whenever he is in the majority. He therefore affects these cases strategically, even when he does not draft the opinion himself. Roberts's choice of opinion author can ensure the decisions have the kind of language and arguments he wants. If this all sounds like inside baseball - it is. But it has a significant impact on the scope of the decisions that the court issues. For one, the Supreme Court has not upheld a single campaign finance limitation since Roberts's ascension to the high bench. More significantly for McCutcheon, however, the language and scope of the decisions have continued to restrict the ability of Congress and the states to regulate money in politics. Since 2006, for example, the court has invalidated a Vermont contribution limitation http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1528.ZS.html, an Arizona public financing scheme http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-238.ZS.html>, and - most notoriously - federal limits on corporate spending http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76448.html> in elections inCitizens United, gives Congress greater leeway in regulating contributions made to political candidates. The court, however, could use McCutcheon to elevate this standard to "strict" scrutiny - which would severely constrain Congress's ability to regulate money in politics. This is what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has urged in an amicus brief in this case - and what his lawyer is due to argue before the court on Tuesday. Roberts has not shown much regard for precedent in the voting rights http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96> and campaign finance http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX1.html contexts in recent years, which suggests that he may be open to this argument. Nor has he displayed any deference to congressional judgments in the elections setting. Roberts, therefore, holds the key http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/09/campaign_finance_at_the_supreme_court_is_mccutcheon_v_fec_the_next_citizens.html in this case. To understand the oral argument, we should focus on the questions he asks and how he approaches these issues. His vote, and who he assigns to write the opinion (assuming he is again in the majority), will have a huge impact on the scope of the decision. Kennedy is not the "swing" vote here, particularly given that he has previously questioned http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-963.ZD.html the court's approach to contribution limitations. It is Roberts who will dictate the case's outcome and lasting effect. Roberts, the most influential justice in election law cases during his tenure, will likely again use his power as chief justice to dictate the rules for contribution limitations. If McCutcheon results in the dismantling of the Buckley framework and the ultimate demise of congressional regulation of money in politics - a smiting blow against campaign finance regulation - we will have the chief justice to blame.