The Supreme Court today announced that it will hear a case that threatens to be the next stage in the Roberts Court's assault on our country's democratic foundations. Shaun McCutcheon, et al. v. Federal Election Commission is a lawsuit challenging federal caps on how much money an individual can contribute in the aggregate during a two-year campaign cycle. The "et al." in the title is the Republican National Committee.

To give you an idea of how extreme it is that the Court is hearing this case, consider this: The lower court ruling upholding the FEC's regulations was written by conservative DC Circuit judge Janice Rogers Brown, no friend to progressives.

Under current FEC rules, during each two-year period starting in an odd-numbered year, no individual may contribute more than an aggregate of $46,200 to candidates and their authorized committees or more than $70,800 to anyone else. Of that $70,800, no more than $46,200 may be contributions to political committees that are not national political party committees. As the Solicitor General noted in urging the Court not to hear the appeal, these caps serve to prevent people from circumventing the individual contribution limits. Without the aggregate caps, it would be too easy to funnel money among candidates and organizations in such a way as to let an individual exceed the base contribution limits. In fact, way back in 1976's Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld the aggregate caps as "no more than a corollary of the basic individual contribution limitation" to candidates or political committees.

McCutcheon and the RNC argue that if the current aggregate caps are valid under Buckley, then the Court should overrule that decision.

Judge Brown ended her decision with the following paragraph:

Plaintiffs raise the troubling possibility that Citizens United undermined the entire contribution limits scheme, but whether that case will ultimately spur a new evaluation of Buckley is a question for the Supreme Court, not us.

Given its history, the Roberts Court may well answer that question in a way that does great harm to our democracy.

As we head into the last weekend before the presidential election, U.S. PIRG and Demos have released an analysis of outside spending up to last week. The quick take-away: Secret and wealthy donors are drowning out the rest of us like never before. Some highlights:

• Outside spending organizations reported $ 1.11 billion in spending to the FEC through the final reporting deadline in the 2012 cycle. That's already a 400% increase over total 2008 outside spending.

With regard to individual donations to super PACs, which have been permitted without limit in the wake up post-Citizens United rulings:

• More than 60% of the 440.9 million raised by Super PACs from individuals came from just 91 people giving at least $1 million each. 97% came from just over 1,900 donors who gave at least $10,000 apiece.
• Super PACs have received as much from 629 wealthy individuals as the two presidential campaigns have received from all small donors giving less than $200, who are at least 1.9 million people. That means the voice of the average wealthy super PAC donor is more than 3,000 times more powerful than the average small donor.

With regard to corporate spending, which Citizens United unleashed:

• Restore Our Future (Mitt Romney's super PAC) has received over 20% of its $156 million in donations from for-profit businesses.
• Freedomworks for America has received 45% of its funds from for-profit businesses.
• While most corporate money is likely being funneled through dark money organizations, businesses are nevertheless providing 12% of all super PAC funds.

And with regard to unreported dark money:

• When all types of outside spending on television ads related to the presidential race are taken into account, 32% the spending has come from by "dark money" groups that do not disclose their donors.

While big business tries to take advantage to silence the voices of ordinary people during the campaign, another assault on the integrity of our elections and of our democracy is seen in right-wing efforts to obstruct certain groups of people from voting. Earlier this week, our affiliate People For the American Way joined with more than fifty other organizations to express concern about both corporate influence in elections and voter suppression.  Calling for "Money Out, Voters In," the joint statement reflects a growing recognition that these two closely related problems threaten our democracy and a commitment by the dozens of signing organizations to tackle both problems together.

Last week, People For the American Foundation released a report highlighting examples of voter suppression efforts in the states. The Right to Vote Under Attack, 2012 Update follows up on a 2011 report.

Undercutting the legitimacy of campaigns and undercutting the legitimacy of elections are two aspects of the same long-term game plan: To weaken the foundations of our democracy, take power away from We the People, and hand it to corporate interests.

Voters in Montana can rest a little easier today, since the Supreme Court has – for now – let stand that state's caps on how much money can be given to candidates in state elections. As SCOTUSBlog reported yesterday:

The Supreme Court, without even seeking the views of the state of Montana, refused on Tuesday to disturb the limits that the state has put on political contributions that can be made to candidates for state offices. The brief order, with no noted dissents, is here. The order rejected a challenge to those donor ceilings by state Republican committees, donors, or candidates who argued that they have had to curtail campaign activity to stay under the ceilings.

It's important to note what this isn't: This is not the Roberts Court letting up on its war against efforts to limit money in politics. The Justices that gave us Citizens United and other cases striking down campaign finance laws have shown no sign of letting up, as their recent doubling down on Citizens United made clear.

Back on October 3, in the case of Lair v. Murry, a federal judge in Montana struck down the state's election campaign contribution limits as too low, saying they unconstitutionally prevent candidates from having enough resources to run effective campaigns. The Ninth Circuit granted Montana's request for a stay pending an appeal, concluding that the state will likely win on the merits when it has a chance to argue that its law is constitutional. The circuit court also cited "the public's substantial interest in the stability of its electoral system in the final weeks leading to an election."

This is one of several test cases put forward by right wing activist James Bopp designed to decimate reasonable limits on money in politics. Powerful interests are gung-ho to pour vast amounts of money into what are ordinarily relatively inexpensive elections. Strict caps help keep elected officials accountable to the voters, rather than to extremely wealthy funders.

Bopp asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision, which would have meant the contribution caps would be unenforced while Montana's appeal works its way through the courts.

The Supreme Court refused, in a typically one-sentence order without explanation. This would seem to signal that even the Roberts Court agrees that Montana has a strong case. Or maybe it just means that the Roberts Court is unwilling to topple a state's campaign finance laws just a couple of weeks before an election.

These days, we'll take what we can get.

This case may have reached its end, or the appeal on the merits may continue at the Ninth Circuit and back to the Supreme Court. Like any case on money in politics that reaches the Court in the future, the outcome is likely to be determined by whether the next Justices are nominated by Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Something to keep in mind heading to Election Day.

President Obama recognizes that Citizens United threatens our democracy, while Mitt Romney fully supports it. In fact, Romney has said he would nominate Supreme Court Justices like the ones who brought us that infamous decision. So it's no surprise that the lion's share of spending made possible by that ruling is benefitting Romney.

That's the finding of the Center for Public Integrity, based on data made available by the Center for Responsive Politics. According to the Center for Public Integrity:

Since Labor Day, the once-unofficial start of the election season, 70 percent of outside spending on the presidential race made possible by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision has benefited Mitt Romney, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

...

Overall, since Labor Day, super PACs, nonprofits and other Citizens United spenders have spent $217 million on "independent expenditures," ads and campaign activities that urge voters to support or oppose a candidate and are reported to the FEC. The total does not include regulated political action committees and party spending.

Super PACs, which can receive and spend unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and unions, are responsible for 55 percent of the spending. Nonprofits, which can act in the same way as super PACs but need not publicly disclose their donors, make up 44 percent of the total.

Here is CPI's pie chart showing just how lopsided the Citizens United spending is in the presidential race: