Supreme Court Strikes Down Cap on Campaign Contributions

[IGotWorms 4,062]

www.nytimes.com

 

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a major campaign finance decision, striking down limits on federal campaign contributions for the first time. The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and most likely increase the role money plays in American politics.

 

The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, was sort of a sequel to Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. But that ruling did nothing to disturb the other main form of campaign finance regulation: caps on direct contributions to candidates and political parties.

 

Wednesdays decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, No. 12-536, addressed that second kind of regulation.

 

It did not disturb familiar base limits on contributions from individuals to candidates, currently $2,600 per candidate in primary and general elections.

 

But it said that overall limits of $48,600 every two years for contributions to all federal candidates violated the First Amendment, as did separate aggregate limits on contributions to political party committees, currently $74,600.

 

The decision chipped away at the central distinction drawn by the Supreme Court in its seminal 1976 campaign finance decision, Buckley v. Valeo.

 

Independent spending, the court said in Buckley, is political speech protected by the First Amendment. But contributions may be capped, the court said, in the name of preventing corruption. The court added that aggregate contribution limits were a quite modest restraint upon protected political activity that serves to prevent evasion of the base limits.

 

Wednesdays decision only concerned contributions from individuals. Federal law continues to ban contributions by corporations and unions.

 

The court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been consistently hostile to campaign finance limits in its half-dozen decisions in argued cases on the subject so far. The five more conservative justices have voted together in all of those cases, though Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. have taken a more incremental approach than the bolder one called for by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Oh great, just what we need: more money in politics

[Mungwater 601]

I guess we will see who has more money, Koch brothers or unions.

[IGotWorms 4,062]

I guess we will see who has more money, Koch brothers or unions.

That is no contest. Koch Brothers and their ilk will always win out in the big money game. Fortunately it seems that many voters are ignoring or actively fighting against their bought-and-paid-for influence. So far at least

[JT 137]

Very unfortunate. Very unsurprising.

[kilroy69 1,265]

after the citizens united ruling this is just another ho hum day at the office for the roberts court. Also clarence thomas may be one of the worst supreme court justices ever. He should be forced to wear a robe that looks like a nascar track suit. Patches that show who bought him. The largest of course would be monsanto.

[Googballz 39]

So, basically the playing field is even?

 

Anyone can donate any amount to anyone they want?

 

This is so unfair.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

I don't like it, but they voted the right way. How else could a common man stand a chance in an election vs. a billionaire?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Who said unfair?

[Mungwater 601]

Who said unfair?

If you thought the last two were bad, next one is bound to be a doozy

[Voltaire 5,453]

It's disgusting.

 

Citizens United is still the worse of the two. Once that went into effect, this was bound to happen. I'd as soon the candidates get the money themselves than funneled through the shady political action committees.

[kilroy69 1,265]

This was something to be expected from the roberts court though. I lost all faith in the court after citizens united as I think a lot of people did.

[Voltaire 5,453]

This was something to be expected from the roberts court though. I lost all faith in the court after citizens united as I think a lot of people did.

Mixed bag. Citizens United is by far the worst thing they've done. But I really, really would love for the conservatives on the court to sh*tcan race-based affirmative action.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

This is a terrible thing. Our democracy was already bought and sold, now it will be worse.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

Citizens United is still the worse of the two. Once that went into effect, this was bound to happen. I'd as soon the candidates get the money themselves than funneled through the shady political action committees.

Perhaps they will be less shady now that they do not have to hide anything.

[Phurfur 70]

I guess we will see who has more money, Koch brothers or unions.

I guess you have never heard of George Soros

[MDC 7,824]

Thank god we've finally allowed corporations to compete on a level playing field with regular people.

[Phurfur 70]

That is no contest. Koch Brothers and their ilk will always win out in the big money game. Fortunately it seems that many voters are ignoring or actively fighting against their bought-and-paid-for influence. So far at least

Link you uninformed loser, here are mine.

 

Evil Koch Brothers Rank #59 in Political Donations Behind 18 Different Unions

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/evil-koch-brothers-rank-59-in-political-donations-behind-18-different-unions/

 

 

14 of America's 25 biggest campaign donors are unions.

 

Yesterday, Senate majority leader Harry Reid went on a rant on the Senate floor about the Koch brothers. Reid seems to believe that the fraternal billionaires are buying America with their campaign contributions, saying whoever has the most money gets the most free speech implying, I suppose, that Charles and David Koch, as some of the richest men in the world, control the most political speech. However, as the Washington Examiners Mark Tapscott noted a few weeks ago, the biggest donors in America may not be what youd expect.

 

I reproduced this chart that shows the top 25 donors to political campaigns between 1989 and 2014, according to the Center for Responsive Politics:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372630/fourteen-americas-25-biggest-campaign-donors-are-unions-veronique-de-rugy

 

Worms is just another victim of MK-Ultra

[drobeski 3,061]

Nytimes

[KSB2424 3,172]

So there is still a limit on how much you can give one canidate, just not a cap on how many canidates right?

 

Meh....

 

If the uncapped the dollar limit you can give to a single canidate that would be outreageous. This, I get.

[edjr 6,875]

Nytimes

 

No agendas, like fox news

[drobeski 3,061]

 

No agendas, like fox news

[IGotWorms 4,062]

Nytimes

So are you suggesting that the story is false? The Supreme Court actually did not strike down aggregate contribution limits?

[KSB2424 3,172]

So are you suggesting that the story is false? The Supreme Court actually did not strike down aggregate contribution limits?

 

I think he was being sarcastic to underscore the stupidity of some of you who do the whole " FoxNews " bit even if the story is factually true.

[Phurfur 70]

So are you suggesting that the story is false? The Supreme Court actually did not strike down aggregate contribution limits?

I am still waiting on your link.

 

See post #17

[Phurfur 70]

That is no contest. Koch Brothers and their ilk will always win out in the big money game. Fortunately it seems that many voters are ignoring or actively fighting against their bought-and-paid-for influence. So far at least

i am still waiting on that Link. Are you a liar, uninformed, misinformed?

 

Evil Koch Brothers Rank #59 in Political Donations Behind 18 Different Unions

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/evil-koch-brothers-rank-59-in-political-donations-behind-18-different-unions/

 

14 of America's 25 biggest campaign donors are unions.

 

Yesterday, Senate majority leader Harry Reid went on a rant on the Senate floor about the Koch brothers. Reid seems to believe that the fraternal billionaires are buying America with their campaign contributions, saying whoever has the most money gets the most free speech implying, I suppose, that Charles and David Koch, as some of the richest men in the world, control the most political speech. However, as the Washington Examiners Mark Tapscott noted a few weeks ago, the biggest donors in America may not be what youd expect.

I reproduced this chart that shows the top 25 donors to political campaigns between 1989 and 2014, according to the Center for Responsive Politics:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372630/fourteen-americas-25-biggest-campaign-donors-are-unions-veronique-de-rugy

[MDC 7,824]

i am still waiting on that Link. Are you a liar, uninformed, misinformed?

 

Evil Koch Brothers Rank #59 in Political Donations Behind 18 Different Unions

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/02/evil-koch-brothers-rank-59-in-political-donations-behind-18-different-unions/

 

14 of America's 25 biggest campaign donors are unions.

 

]

Do they each have 2 members?

[Phurfur 70]

Do they each have 2 members?

I guess you are just stupid, what he said was

 

That is no contest. Koch Brothers and their ilk will always win out in the big money game. Fortunately it seems that many voters are ignoring or actively fighting against their bought-and-paid-for influence. So far at least

 

BTW: doesn't it bother you that people are forced to join unions or lose their jobs and are forced to make campaign contributions they do not agree with?

[MDC 7,824]

I guess you are just stupid, what he said was

 

That is no contest. Koch Brothers and their ilk will always win out in the big money game. Fortunately it seems that many voters are ignoring or actively fighting against their bought-and-paid-for influence. So far at least

 

BTW: doesn't it bother you that people are forced to join unions or lose their jobs and are forced to make campaign contributions they do not agree with?

As usual my point flew right over your pointy head.

[Phurfur 70]

As usual my point flew right over your pointy head.

You act like union members have a choice on were their campaign contributions go. Unfortunately it is the decision of a very Few people at the top. HTH Your point was stupid and meaningless, now go look at the point on the top of your head.

[MDC 7,824]

You act like union members have a choice on were their campaign contributions go. Unfortunately it is the decision of a very Few people at the top. HTH Your point was stupid and meaningless, now go look at the point on the top of your head.

Still flailing grandpa. Old and dumb.

[drobeski 3,061]

Mingya mdc taking it hard in the face on this one, its almost like he likes it.

[MDC 7,824]

Mingya mdc taking it hard in the face on this one, its almost like he likes it.

Whoosh! Right over dumbeski's blockhead, stunner.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Know how you are doing well in any argument.

Drobeski claims you are getting your ass kicked.

[Googballz 39]

Know how you are doing well in any argument.

 

You are having the argument with you?

[Sho Nuff 720]