A Threat to Democracy
Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch would be a gift to wealthy campaign donors.

(Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Americans who voted for President Donald Trump because of his blunt criticisms that our political system is out of balance and dominated by wealthy special interests must feel betrayed.
Trump's nomination of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch, a millionaire backed by millions of special interest dollars, to the U.S. Supreme Court stands to further entrench big-money politics as the law of the land and threaten our democracy. The nomination stands in stark contrast to the president's inauguration promise to "give power back to the people."
The Supreme Court should allow "we the people" to protect our democracy from big money and special interests. Instead it has issued a series of misguided decisions that have systematically struck down common-sense protections against big money in politics and enabled the wealthy and privileged to decide who runs for office, who wins and what issues get their attention.
Many conservatives agree it's time for bold, comprehensive action to strengthen our democracy. Trump had an opportunity to nominate a justice who cares more about protecting every American's free speech and expects elected officials to listen to the people. Many conservatives worry billionaires are paying to amplify their voices and drowning out the rest of us with millions in election spending.
A majority of voters – including 54 percent of Republicans – said it was "very important" to them that Trump's nominee be open to limiting the influence of big money in politics, according to a poll by Hattaway Communications in January. Only 7 percent of voters said this was not important to them.
But Trump veered in the exact opposite direction. If confirmed, his nominee will likely go down in history as a gift to wealthy campaign donors.
OPINION:
Editorial Cartoons on the Supreme Court Vacancy ]Though Judge Gorsuch's record on money in politics is sparse, it raises significant concerns among legal experts. Specifically, his troubling concurring opinion in Riddle v. Hickenlooper suggests he is open to a higher level of constitutional protection to a donor's right to make political contributions than to every American's right to vote. Applying this rigid "strict scrutiny" review would likely allow the Court to declare campaign contribution limits unconstitutional, and therefore allow the wealthy to donate unlimited sums directly to our representatives. In other words, far from limiting big money, Gorsuch is open to eliminating one of the last remaining checks on the power of big donors.
His champions indicate he'll protect the privileges of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyday Americans. Gorsuch was hand-picked by the Federalist Society, which is hostile to basic rules limiting political contributions, and vetted by a leading opponent of contribution limits, Don McGahn.
If confirmed, Gorsuch will also rule on other issues challenging our democracy, including questions most Americans thought were long ago resolved. Cases on voting rights ensuring every eligible voter can easily access a ballot and cast their vote free from intimidation seem like a relic of the 1960's, but are making their way to the Court in the 21st century. Gerrymandering will be on the court's future docket as well.
Those who voted for Trump may like Gorsuch for his positions on abortion and guns, but without a functioning democracy to debate our differences, we all lose. Everyone has a right to have a say in the decisions affecting our lives, our families and our future. When the voice of the people is heard, government works better for all of us. But as long as getting elected requires enormous sums of money from big donors, wealthy special interests will continue to get a bigger say than the rest of us. The same is true when politicians are gerrymandering districts and suppressing voters. It doesn't have to be this way.
PHOTOS:
The Big Picture – January 2017 ]This is about the future of our democracy. We must demand senators thoroughly vet Gorsuch on these threats to our democracy. We deserve clear answers to questions about his understanding of the Constitution and with whom power ultimately lies in our democracy.
I'll kick things off. Judge Gorsuch, do We the People have the power to enact common-sense limits on money in politics, so that Americans of all incomes, races and backgrounds can run for office and have our voices heard?
Tags: Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court, campaign finance, elections, politics, voters, democracy, law