Supreme Court strikes down overall donor limits.

[KC]

We need a Constitutional Amendment.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26855657


The US Supreme Court has struck down overall contribution limits for individual political donors.

The court ruled 5-4 that individuals could give to candidates, parties and political groups without observing an overall cap of $123,200 (£74,000).


The ruling leaves in place limits on how much donors can give to a single candidate - currently $2,600 (£1,560).
The decision is the latest in a series which have loosened restrictions on US campaign finance.
Contribution limits were established by Congress in the 1970s in an attempt to restore the public's faith in government after President Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal.

[Max Rockatansky]

http://texshelters.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/congress_for_sale-from-truenewsfromchangenyc-blogspot-com.jpg

1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

[The Xl]

And the tumor grows.

[KC]

How can we expect government to serve the general welfare rather than private interests when individuals can spend as much as they like to sway a politician?

[nic34]

What did you all expect? It's the REAGAN/BUSH Roberts court....


Maybe now you'll support change?

https://movetoamend.org/

[Newpublius]

How can we expect government to serve the general welfare rather than private interests when individuals can spend as much as they like to sway a politician?

Well, let's put it this way, how much do you think media corporations like MSNBC and FoxNews spend to put the likes of Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly on the air whose views of course tend to, at least attempt, to sway political opinion.

In this case, there is an actual person involved, his name is McCutcheon and he's generally a Republican or supports Team 'R' - In the 2012 cycle, McCutcheon gave $33,088 to sixteen federal candidates and over $25,000 in non-candidate contributions.[basically to the Republican Party itself or to some PACs] McCutcheon intended on donating to an additional twelve federal candidates, bringing his contribution total over the federal aggregate limit on federal candidates.

So there's the equitable rub really, why is it that MSNBC and Fox can spend hundreds of millions of dollars, even BILLIONS to put on their programming where they hold the loudest megaphones, but this guy can't spend tens of thousands?

[Green Arrow]

Another tragic chapter in American history.

Congratulations, my fellow Americans. Now, more than ever, we have lost any say in how our government operates.

[nic34]

Now don't tell me elections don't have consequences and parties don't matter....

[countryboy]

How can we expect government to serve the general welfare rather than private interests when individuals can spend as much as they like to sway a politician?

How do you protect freedom of speech, while at the same time limiting it? Serious question, I'm still on the fence on this issue.

[Green Arrow]

Now don't tell me elections don't have consequences and parties don't matter....

They don't. Kennedy was the last President that mattered. Every single one of them afterward? No. Johnson won. He killed Kennedy and set a never-before-achieved precedent for corruption that ensured we'd never have a real choice again.

[KC]

How do you protect freedom of speech, while at the same time limiting it? Serious question, I'm still on the fence on this issue.

Paying off candidates (essentially bribing) is freedom of speech?

[Green Arrow]

How do you protect freedom of speech, while at the same time limiting it? Serious question, I'm still on the fence on this issue.

How is it harming free speech to cap donations at $20,000?

[nic34]

They don't. Kennedy was the last President that mattered. Every single one of them afterward? No. Johnson won. He killed Kennedy and set a never-before-achieved precedent for corruption that ensured we'd never have a real choice again.

Who appointed the 5 judges that decided this ruling....?

[Green Arrow]

Who appointed the 5 judges that decided this ruling....?

Republicans, but Justice Kennedy has always been purple.

[The Xl]

Now don't tell me elections don't have consequences and parties don't matter....

The Democrats are the same shit and are bought by the same people.

[Max Rockatansky]

Now don't tell me elections don't have consequences and parties don't matter....

Agreed. If Gore had won, would we have had the Iraq War? No. If McCain had won would we have Obamacare? No again. While many things would have remained the same because they are in the mainstream, such national debt issues vis-a-vis ballooning entitlement programs, the expenses of both the Iraq War and Obamacare wouldn't have been dumped on top of the present problems.

[nic34]

Republicans, but Justice Kennedy has always been purple.

Reagan. And he was one of the 5.

[Newpublius]

How is it harming free speech to cap donations at $20,000?

First off the individual limits that limits how much an individual gives to an individual candidate remains in place, it's the aggregate limit which would limit how many different campaigns an individual could give to. So, assuming an individual wanted to give the maximum for individual campaigns, he'd have to be selective about which ones to fund and which ones not to, now he doesn't have to, he can give the previously allowable maximum to all of them.

[nic34]

The Democrats are the same shit and are bought by the same people.

With the appointment of SC judges you couldn't be more wrong.

Who is running the country now?

[nic34]

". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010

[countryboy]

How is it harming free speech to cap donations at $20,000?
What about those of us who don't have $20,000 dollars to give? Doesn't that put us at a disadvantage? Is not being at a disadvantage Constitutionally protected?

[countryboy]

Paying off candidates (essentially bribing) is freedom of speech?
Donating to a political campaign is not "paying off candidates", nor is it "essentially bribing". Care to answer the original question?

[nic34]

What about those of us who don't have $20,000 dollars to give?

Give that man a cigar! :grin:

[Green Arrow]

Reagan. And he was one of the 5.

Irrelevant. He's a purple justice, and where are all the Democrats in Congress pushing against this? Where is Obama pushing against it? Besides making speeches. How successful has Sen. Sanders' numerous bills and constitutional amendment proposals been? Where were the Democratic backers?

Come on, nic. You're smarter than that. Stop trying to turn this into something partisan.

[countryboy]

Give that man a cigar! :grin:
I think you misinterpreted my comment. It was sarcastic in nature. By that logic, nobody could contribute anything to political campaigns.

[Green Arrow]

What about those of us who don't have $20,000 dollars to give? Doesn't that put us at a disadvantage? Is not being at a disadvantage Constitutionally protected?

You can make the limit lower than $20,000. I care not. I'd rather see it around $500, myself, but that's just me.

Now, I answered your question, answer mine ;) How is it hampering free speech? You can still donate to candidates and causes and you can still campaign for and endorse them. You just can't own the candidate.

[Newpublius]

". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010



we're not discussing corporations here, this is an individual, it's not mccutcheon, inc it's Mr. McCutcheon, an actual natural person.

[countryboy]

You can make the limit lower than $20,000. I care not. I'd rather see it around $500, myself, but that's just me.

Now, I answered your question, answer mine ;) How is it hampering free speech? You can still donate to candidates and causes and you can still campaign for and endorse them. You just can't own the candidate.
It's obvious, by limiting the amount, you limit the amount of free speech. I guess we could change the First Amendment to read "limited speech".

Don't get me wrong, I hate the amount of money going into politics, and I want to find a Constitutional solution to this potential problem. Maybe limiting the amount a campaign could take in or spend?

[Newpublius]

It's obvious, by limiting the amount, you limit the amount of free speech. I guess we could change the First Amendment to read "limited speech".

Don't get me wrong, I hate the amount of money going into politics, and I want to find a Constitutional solution to this potential problem. Maybe limiting the amount a campaign could take in or spend?

Each individual campaign remains limited to a maximum amount.

[Green Arrow]

It's obvious, by limiting the amount, you limit the amount of free speech. I guess we could change the First Amendment to read "limited speech".

How, though? Tossing money at something isn't speech. I highly doubt the founders would agree with that interpretation. I'm pretty sure they were thinking of actual speech there.


Don't get me wrong, I hate the amount of money going into politics, and I want to find a Constitutional solution to this potential problem. Maybe limiting the amount a campaign could take in or spend?

That could work. I'm not yet convinced that capping an individual's donations is not constitutional though.

[countryboy]

Each individual campaign remains limited to a maximum amount.
Then what's the problem with the ruling? Perhaps the limit is too high. I'm just throwing stuff out there.

[countryboy]

How, though? Tossing money at something isn't speech. I highly doubt the founders would agree with that interpretation. I'm pretty sure they were thinking of actual speech there.



That could work. I'm not yet convinced that capping an individual's donations is not constitutional though.
I don't necessarily disagree, but for some reason it still rubs me the wrong way.

[Green Arrow]

I don't necessarily disagree, but for some reason it still rubs me the wrong way.

Well, I'm not certain how our founders would feel about it. They didn't deal with the same issue.

Well, Adams, I know how he'd have felt. Adams would support all the wealthiest of Americans giving as much money as they wanted, 'cause that powder-wig believed only American aristocrats should be able to vote and serve in government :tongue:

[Peter1469]

We need a Constitutional Amendment.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26855657

Yes, we would need a constitutional amendment to get SCOTUS to (honestly) rule otherwise.

[Peter1469]

Then what's the problem with the ruling? Perhaps the limit is too high. I'm just throwing stuff out there.

The individual limit was not challenged from what I understand.

[KC]

Well, I'm not certain how our founders would feel about it. They didn't deal with the same issue.

Well, Adams, I know how he'd have felt. Adams would support all the wealthiest of Americans giving as much money as they wanted, 'cause that powder-wig believed only American aristocrats should be able to vote and serve in government :tongue:

Yeah, the founders wouldn't have any unified opinion about this.

[nic34]

we're not discussing corporations here, this is an individual, it's not mccutcheon, inc it's Mr. McCutcheon, an actual natural person.

I'm addressing the "money as speech" issue. I could give a rats whoever donated...

Money IS NOT speech and corporations are not "people".

Just seems in this money$$grabbing society, money is ALL that matters...

[zelmo1234]

". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

If that is the case? Should they be taxed? Because that would lead to the taxations without representation, that was one of the key issues in the founding of this country? Just a thought!

~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010

[KC]

In an ideal world I would like to see an amendment specifically forbidding any campaign contributions by any entity other than an individual. It would also specify that Congress has the power to place limit on individual contributions.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, we would need a constitutional amendment to get SCOTUS to (honestly) rule otherwise.

I believe they do. This doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, but that they do their best to go by the rule of law. Political ideology certainly enters into it, but not as party politics. Simply that conservatives see life differently than liberals and vice versa. It's a philosophical difference which can color one's interpretation of laws.

[Max Rockatansky]

In an ideal world I would like to see an amendment specifically forbidding any campaign contributions by any entity other than an individual. It would also specify that Congress has the power to place limit on individual contributions.

Works for me!

[Newpublius]

In an ideal world I would like to see an amendment specifically forbidding any campaign contributions by any entity other than an individual. It would also specify that Congress has the power to place limit on individual contributions.

OK, well, aside from that, you realize this case was discussing the contributions made by an individual, right?

[KC]

OK, well, aside from that, you realize this case was discussing the contributions made by an individual, right?

Yes. It got rid of limitations for individual contributions. I want those contributions to be limited to no more than a few thousand dollars.

[KC]

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/1932278_10152319469419255_2069288418_n.jpg

[Newpublius]

Yes. It got rid of limitations for individual contributions. I want those contributions to be limited to no more than a few thousand dollars.

No, it didn't, it got rid of aggregate limits, the maximum as applied to an individual candidate remain in place. Fact is the person can now give that amount to any campaign he or she desires, whereas before that individual would've been limited by the aggregate limit.

[Newpublius]

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/1932278_10152319469419255_2069288418_n.jpg

Money isn't speech but it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to publish the NY Times. Paper and ink aren't free and the I Amendment isn't the right to sit quietly in a corner and whisper to passersby whatever unpersuasive gibberish that person might be uttering, its the affirmative right to engage in persuasive and wisely viewed/read speech of all kinds I might add. At the Founding there really weren't many newspapers, freedom of the press was an affirmative right. Do you think Ben Franklin was poor or that anybody could own a printing press?

Hardly.....