Washington, DC-Nick Nyhart, Public Campaign’s executive director, issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the Colorado II case today: “This is a victory for reform. Had the Court eliminated the restrictions on party support for candidates, it would have completely legitimized the parties as cash-laundering machines for donors who want to side-step the limits on individual contributions. If the GOP had had its way in this case, big contributors could effectively earmark tens of thousands of dollars to their favorite candidate simply by passing the money through that candidate's party-further strengthening the corrupting link between big money and politicians.”

“At the same time that Justice Souter’s majority opinion sought to prevent that expansion of political corruption, I found it encouraging to see that it also frankly acknowledged that the existing state of affairs raises concerns. ‘Even under present law substantial donations turn the parties into matchmakers whose special meetings and receptions give the donors the chance to get their points across to the candidates,’ Souter writes. ‘Parties thus perform functions more complex than simply electing candidates; whether they like it or not, they act as agents for spending on behalf of those who seek to produce obligated officeholders,’ he also notes.

“Justice Souter’s majority is clearly aware of today’s system, where donors hedge their bets and buy access and influence by giving to both parties and competing candidates. After noting this phenomenon, Souter writes, ‘Parties are thus necessarily the instruments of some contributors whose object is not to support the party’s message or to elect party candidates across the board, but rather to support a specific candidate for the sake of a position on one, narrow issue, or even to support any candidate who will be obliged to the contributors.’”

“The dictionary definition of a bribe is ‘money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust.’ Justice Souter and the majority of the Court seem to be refreshingly up-to-date on how much our system of private financing for campaigns has turned into legalized bribery. The language of their ruling in Colorado II offers hope that someday, perhaps soon, they will take more far-reaching steps to curb corruption and restore public faith in our electoral system.”