3 Key Facts About Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor

While the nation's media and punditocracy speed-read through Sotomayor's body of work for key excerpts on various issues, here's what we know about her on the campaign reform front:

1. The Court needs a friend of reform.

The current Supreme Court, under Bush appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, has established a clear distaste for reform. Legal experts wonder whether the Roberts Court will continue on a course of "death by a thousand cuts." At a recent campaign reform conference, Monica Youn, a counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, described the stance of the Roberts Court on campaign reform:

Retiring Justice Souter was an important voice on these issues, and his replacement should likewise understand the benefits of citizen-funded elections, as well as uphold existing Supreme Court legal precedents supporting reforms. Given the hostility of the court in recent years to these democratic measures, it's important that the next Justice represent the viewpoints of the 67% of Americans who support small-donor based public funding of federal elections.

Update: In response to a question we've received about the constitutionality of You Street's core reform, voluntary public funding of elections, we're glad to advise that public funding has been upheld by the Supreme Court in every challenge since it was first considered in 1976. Not only does public funding cherish the First Amendment by enabling more voices to be heard without placing limits on those who don't take part, if also prevents corruption and conflict of interest by severing the link between public officials and special interest groups. For a Court increasingly hostile to campaign finance limits and added regulation, voluntary public funding offers a compelling and positive alternative.

2. Sotomayor was a founding member of the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

New York City's public campaign finance system was established by voters through a referendum in 1988. Since then it has made candidates and elected officials more responsive to New York City citizens and greatly reduced the opportunities for special interests to influence candidates. It is also one of the first examples of public matching funds, which encourage politicians to reach out to their constituents for small donations that are then matched with public funds. A version of this small-donor based matching system is at the core of the Fair Elections Now Act.

Photo by jfholloway used under Creative Commons license.

3. Sotomayor's opinions on campaign finance are completely on par with existing Supreme Court precedent.

Far from the "activist judge" anti-reform groups would like to paint her as, Sotomayor's opinions are in line with established precedent in cases involving campaign reform. Like most Americans, she is concerned that the exchange of vast amounts of money endangers objectivity. Reform group Democracy 21 reviewed a 1996 law article authored by Sotomayor:

...Judge Sotomayor took note of "the persistence of extremely troubling - but legal - practices in the public arena." She said that "our system of election financing permits extensive private, including corporate, financing of candidates' campaigns, raising again and again the question what the difference is between contributions and bribes and how legislators or other officials can operate objectively on behalf of the electorate."

Sotomayor is not only in the majority of Americans who have trouble seeing the difference between an outright bribe and millions spent in campaign contributions; she is also completely in keeping with the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo:

Laws making criminal the giving and taking of bribes deal only with the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action. And while disclosure requirements serve the many salutary purposes discussed elsewhere in this opinion, Congress was surely entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a partial measure and that contribution ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to deal with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even when the identities of the contributors and the amounts of their contributions are fully disclosed.

(Source)

Sotomayor's nomination process promised to be a contentious one before she was even chosen. The process will surely bring out the usual party politics, but we are heartened that President Obama has nominated a judge with an unusual breadth of experience in campaign finance law and a solid, mainstream appreciation for the importance of reform.

Update: The New York Times has more on Sotomayor's background, including further details on her role at the New York City Campaign Finance Board, here.