Now more than ever, buy the candidate of your choice!

[Guinevere]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/po ... ml?hp&_r=0

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.

Wednesday’s 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.

[rubato]

Absolutely staggering. Democracy is being undone, step by step, by this group on the SC.


How can they look at themselves telling such a transparent whopping lie?


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

My wallet was so excited about this new affirmation of its freedom of speech that it wouldn't shut up! In order to go to sleep today (so that I can go to work tonight), I had to wrap it in a heavy quilt and lock it in a closet in another room.

Free speech for money...BAH!

[Long Run]

I have only read the summary of the cases (and dangerous as it might be to chime in from there), but it seems, as usual, the gnashing and wailing ignore two main points. First, there is a difference between what may be good policy and what may or may not be Constitutional. Second, the rationale for impeding free speech by placing monetary limits on political contributions by individuals is that if an individual gives too much money to a single candidate, this creates the reasonable concern that the donor will have too much influence over the politician; this passes the "smell" test of a rational regulation on free speech.

However, that rational constriction on free speech does not apply to an overall donation limit -- that is, what is the rationale that does not allow a donor to give $2,600 (or whatever the limit may be in the future) to as many candidates as he or she pleases? The gnashing and wailing is the fear that this, horror of horrors, allows wealthy people to fund more people they like, rather than having to prioritize donations and/or use alternative means of pushing their preferred policies and candidates (which, of course, they do already). But, back to the first point, this concern that the wealthy may have an outsized ability to support their causes and candidates does not create a Constitutional basis for limiting free speech.

[Guinevere]

Respectfully, read the opinion. And also read Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976).

[Sue U]

Not so much buying the candidate of your choice as a shoppers' club to buy candidates in bulk. A political Costco for Kochs.

[Lord Jim]

a shoppers' club to buy candidates in bulk

They must be selling themselves awfully cheap, at $2600 a piece....

[Gob]

Which part of "politicians and money" do you not understand Jim?

[rubato]

'...
However, that rational constriction on free speech does not apply to an overall donation limit -- that is, what is the rationale that does not allow a donor to give $2,600 (or whatever the limit may be in the future) to as many candidates as he or she pleases? The gnashing and wailing is the fear that this, horror of horrors, allows wealthy people to fund more people they like, rather than having to prioritize donations and/or use alternative means of pushing their preferred policies and candidates (which, of course, they do already). But, back to the first point, this concern that the wealthy may have an outsized ability to support their causes and candidates does not create a Constitutional basis for limiting free speech.

You are not as imaginative in the mis-use of power as they are. If you go to a congressman and give him $2,600 that will buy you access. He will talk to you then. If you also go to him and say "who else do you want me to give $2,600 to"? You have bought him again because now he has power over his colleagues because you are making him a "rainmaker" who decides who does and who doesn't get money. And you bought individual access to each of them. Further, congressmen can buy power by directing their OWN contributions (underwritten) to other politicians in their party. If you multiply this by family members (how many members of the Ken lay family gave to Bush II?) and then iterate over years it is easy to see that this is a very big deal indeed.

The suit was not brought because it didn't matter and they didn't care. It was brought because it does matter and the evil and corrupt do care a lot about not having the means of corruption limited.

"Money doesn't talk it swears." Dylan

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Baloney. The ability to spend money on a cause or candidate is so closely related to the ability to speak publicly that no restrictions should be permitted.

The biggest single problem in political discourse today is the ability of candidates to LIE with impunity because (1) the defamation laws in this country have been eviscerated and (2) because the Fourth Estate lets (Democrats) get away with it. I rarely see a political commercial that does not contain at least one WHOPPER, and given the limited attention span of the average voter, these lies affect the outcome of elections. SEIU commercials are particularly bad.

It is also regrettable that wealthy individuals can flood the airwaves with crap, using their own money. And again, the media drops the ball when it comes to calling them out on their lies.

[Joe Guy]

This ruling by the SC doesn't seem so outrageous to me.

Are people afraid that it might cause politicians to become corrupt?

[Grim Reaper]

Baloney. The ability to spend money on a cause or candidate is so closely related to the ability to speak publicly that no restrictions should be permitted.

Being able to drown out other peoples' voices by dumping more of your money than anybody else is not free speech.

The more money people have, the more votes they should get, why not? Money is linked to free speech, so more money should give more votes too. Every 10 million a person makes gives them an extra vote. Wouldn't want the poor millionaires and billionaires to think their speech is the same as anyone else.

[Econoline]