Memo: Gorsuch Provides Voters No Assurances He’d Protect Their Voices from Big Money

Mar 21, 2017

Memo: Gorsuch Provides Voters No Assurances He’d Protect Their Voices from Big Money

To: Interested Parties
Date: March 21, 2017
Re: Gorsuch Provides Voters No Assurances at Hearing He’d Protect Their Voices from Big Money

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee kicked off its hearing to consider the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court, Americans had reason to be concerned he will further entrench the power of wealthy campaign donors over everyday voters, if confirmed.

Legal groupselection law professorsanti-corruption expertsU.S. RepresentativesU.S. Senators and membership organizations have all raised this concern.

Committee members today got their chance to publicly ask Judge Gorsuch his views on the topic after making money in politics and the future of our democracy a key theme during their opening statements yesterday.

But as the committee wraps up its second day of hearings, Judge Gorsuch has so far offered nothing to assuage those concerns and may even have exacerbated them. In almost every case he simply refused to reveal his views.

  • Right at the start he refused to answer a question from Sen. Grassley on whether he agrees with Citizens United. If he does in fact agree with the precedent in Citizens United as suggested by his record, he’s smart to conceal that view from the public. A Bloomberg Politics national poll found 78% of respondents think the ruling should be overturned – including 80% of Republicans. Another more recent poll found 70% of Americans said they are more likely to oppose the president’s nominee if he “would uphold the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that allowed corporations, unions, and wealthy donors to spend more money in our elections.”
     
  • When given a second chance by Sen. Leahy to explain his views, Gorsuch proceeded to misstate the holding in Citizens United by wrongly saying that Congress has ample room to enact expenditure limits. As Rick Hasen notes, "Either Judge Gorsuch does not understand the scope of Citizens United and its holding, or he is trying to soften its harshness by wrongly suggesting Congress has room to legislate spending limits." Either way he must clarify his position so voters and senators can determine whether they support his confirmation.
     
  • Shortly after Gorsuch tried to dodge Sen. Leahy's simple question of whether buying votes or favors is corruption. As Every Voice’s David Donnelly commented after, “Judge Gorsuch refused to give a straight answer to the simplest, most basic question about whether a politician could sell their vote. That’s ludicrous.”
     
  • Sen. Whitehouse then brought the discussion to the disclosure of donors to outside political groups considering the fact that such groups are spending millions to ensure his confirmation. He again evaded, leaving the question open as to whether he comes down on the side of the Koch brothers and Justice Thomas who oppose disclosure or on the side of the late Justice Scalia and most Americans who support disclosure.
     
  • Sen. Klobuchar proceeded to examine his troubling concurring opinion in Hickenlooper v. Riddle. Again, Gorsuch evaded three direct questions about whether he believes strict scrutiny should be applied to all laws limiting campaign contributions. Such an extreme view could be used to strike down the last remaining checks on the power of big donors. A poll conducted just weeks before Gorsuch’s nomination found 63% of voters – including 56% of Trump voters – said it was “very important” President Trump nominates a Supreme Court justice who is open to limiting the influence of big money in politics. It's still not clear if that's what voters are getting but the evidence doesn't point in the right direction.

Judge Gorsuch has one more day of testimony to give voters an unequivocal reason to believe that he would not continue the Supreme Court’s misguided approach to money in politics and strike down even more laws that help ensure everyday Americans have a voice in our democracy. But based on what we’ve heard so far, voters shouldn’t be holding their breath.