A Decision That Could Be The Biggest Influence in American Election History

[IndependntLogic]

In Maine and Rhode Island, PACs were just denied the right to keep their campaign contributions secret by the 1st Circuit. I don't care about the issue, I have long held that Corporations, Unions and PACs being able to secretly funnel gargantuan amounts of money to candidates who will legislate as per their bidding, is the single biggest contributor to the corruption of our government.
Although the majority of Dems, Republicans and even Ron Paul support keeping this method of corruption behind closed doors and conducting "business as usual", I believe it has been the single largest source of government corruption in history (and it is relatively new!).
I hope other states and eventually the USSC will follow suit. I would personally, like to know who is buying the candidates that run for office.
I wish I could post a link but the American Lawyer charges $1300 a year for twelve issues and their software stops Cut & Pasting. I'm sure it will be verifiable soon.
Bravo 1st Circuit!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In essence the court ruled the laws have a rational basis and do not preempt First Amendment rights.

But in separate rulings yesterday, the First Circuit upheld the Maine and Rhode Island disclosure laws. Here’s a link to a Providence Journal report on the ruling in the Rhode Island case and click here for a report from the Maine Public Broadcasting Network on the other ruling.

In the Rhode Island case, the First Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that the state’s disclosure law imposed little burden on NOM and had a valuable governmental interest in identifying the people who give more than $100 to a support or defeat a candidate, the Journal reports.

In the Maine case, the First Circuit concluded that Maine’s laws “neither erect a barrier to political speech nor limit its quantity. Rather, they promote the dissemination of information about those who deliver and finance political speech, thereby encouraging efficient operation of the marketplace of ideas

First Circuit Rules Against Anti-gay Marriage Group in Campaign-Finance Suits - Law Blog - WSJ

 

[editec]

Good ruling

Money may equal free speech, but SECRET MONEY definitely equals GOVERNMENTS run by conspiracy.

 

[konradv]

In Maine and Rhode Island, PACs were just denied the right to keep their campaign contributions secret by the 1st Circuit. I don't care about the issue, I have long held that Corporations, Unions and PACs being able to secretly funnel gargantuan amounts of money to candidates who will legislate as per their bidding, is the single biggest contributor to the corruption of our government.
Although the majority of Dems, Republicans and even Ron Paul support keeping this method of corruption behind closed doors and conducting "business as usual", I believe it has been the single largest source of government corruption in history (and it is relatively new!).
I hope other states and eventually the USSC will follow suit. I would personally, like to know who is buying the candidates that run for office.
I wish I could post a link but the American Lawyer charges $1300 a year for twelve issues and their software stops Cut & Pasting. I'm sure it will be verifiable soon.
Bravo 1st Circuit!

I don't want to give them a chance to be bought at all. I think the only solution is public financing of elections. Even if the secrecy is broken, our representitives would still be spending too much of their time "selling" their votes to whomever can bundle the largest amount of contributions, instead of doing our business. If we want our representitives to listen to us, we're going to have to foot the bill, IMO. Anything else is just "business as usual".

 

[editec]

In Maine and Rhode Island, PACs were just denied the right to keep their campaign contributions secret by the 1st Circuit. I don't care about the issue, I have long held that Corporations, Unions and PACs being able to secretly funnel gargantuan amounts of money to candidates who will legislate as per their bidding, is the single biggest contributor to the corruption of our government.
Although the majority of Dems, Republicans and even Ron Paul support keeping this method of corruption behind closed doors and conducting "business as usual", I believe it has been the single largest source of government corruption in history (and it is relatively new!).
I hope other states and eventually the USSC will follow suit. I would personally, like to know who is buying the candidates that run for office.
I wish I could post a link but the American Lawyer charges $1300 a year for twelve issues and their software stops Cut & Pasting. I'm sure it will be verifiable soon.
Bravo 1st Circuit!

I don't want to give them a chance to be bought at all. I think the only solution is public financing of elections. Even if the secrecy is broken, our representitives would still be spending too much of their time "selling" their votes to whomever can bundle the largest amount of contributions, instead of doing our business. If we want our representitives to listen to us, we're going to have to foot the bill, IMO. Anything else is just "business as usual".

I think that might be PART of the solution, but in and of itself that's not enough reform, kon.

And to be honest I do not know how to create a system that can keep MONEY out of politics without ALSO tragically limiting free speech, either.

You see BIG CAPITAL is always going to have a serious advantage in reaching the public and swaying it to their POV.

Even if we did entirely eliminate campaign contributions, and PAC money going to parties, the laws of the land (read FREE SPEECH) still gives big capital the right (and this is a civil right that I would have to support, too) to use the media to get their message out.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

NOM's pissed.

>>>>

 

[signelect]

This is way past due. Campaign money ought not to belong to the candidate either. I think a lot of them get rich off what they don't spend.

 

[konradv]

In Maine and Rhode Island, PACs were just denied the right to keep their campaign contributions secret by the 1st Circuit. I don't care about the issue, I have long held that Corporations, Unions and PACs being able to secretly funnel gargantuan amounts of money to candidates who will legislate as per their bidding, is the single biggest contributor to the corruption of our government.
Although the majority of Dems, Republicans and even Ron Paul support keeping this method of corruption behind closed doors and conducting "business as usual", I believe it has been the single largest source of government corruption in history (and it is relatively new!).
I hope other states and eventually the USSC will follow suit. I would personally, like to know who is buying the candidates that run for office.
I wish I could post a link but the American Lawyer charges $1300 a year for twelve issues and their software stops Cut & Pasting. I'm sure it will be verifiable soon.
Bravo 1st Circuit!

I don't want to give them a chance to be bought at all. I think the only solution is public financing of elections. Even if the secrecy is broken, our representitives would still be spending too much of their time "selling" their votes to whomever can bundle the largest amount of contributions, instead of doing our business. If we want our representitives to listen to us, we're going to have to foot the bill, IMO. Anything else is just "business as usual".

I think that might be PART of the solution, but in and of itself that's not enough reform, kon.

And to be honest I do not know how to create a system that can keep MONEY out of politics without ALSO tragically limiting free speech, either.

You see BIG CAPITAL is always going to have a serious advantage in reaching the public and swaying it to their POV.

Even if we did entirely eliminate campaign contributions, and PAC money going to parties, the laws of the land (read FREE SPEECH) still gives big capital the right (and this is a civil right that I would have to support, too) to use the media to get their message out.

It would require a new amendment to the Constituion, but I have no problem with banning such messages for a period of time before the election, except for those produced by parties and candidates and limited by the amount of money statutorily set.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In Maine and Rhode Island, PACs were just denied the right to keep their campaign contributions secret by the 1st Circuit. I don't care about the issue, I have long held that Corporations, Unions and PACs being able to secretly funnel gargantuan amounts of money to candidates who will legislate as per their bidding, is the single biggest contributor to the corruption of our government.
Although the majority of Dems, Republicans and even Ron Paul support keeping this method of corruption behind closed doors and conducting "business as usual", I believe it has been the single largest source of government corruption in history (and it is relatively new!).
I hope other states and eventually the USSC will follow suit. I would personally, like to know who is buying the candidates that run for office.
I wish I could post a link but the American Lawyer charges $1300 a year for twelve issues and their software stops Cut & Pasting. I'm sure it will be verifiable soon.
Bravo 1st Circuit!

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion that PACs are a massive source of corruption? Can you explain exactly how the corruption occurs behind closed doors when every candidate has to declare any and all donations or gifts received by these PACs?

By the way, if you are talking about what I think you are, which is hard to tell since you supplied no links, you are essentially misrepresenting the decision. The law that the National Organization for Marriage challenged has nothing to do with campaign contributions, nor does it require them to disclose their donors. It is simply a reporting requirement that requires any PAC that spends money relating to an election to report how much money they are spending. There is nothing new about this, it is settled law, and has been for decades. It doesn't change anything, and will not, unless they appeal and SCOTUS decides to overturn precedent. I see no reason why they would do that.

You really should do a little research before you go off on benders, you end up looking foolish a lot more if you don't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In essence the court ruled the laws have a rational basis and do not preempt First Amendment rights.

But in separate rulings yesterday, the First Circuit upheld the Maine and Rhode Island disclosure laws. Here’s a link to a Providence Journal report on the ruling in the Rhode Island case and click here for a report from the Maine Public Broadcasting Network on the other ruling.

In the Rhode Island case, the First Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that the state’s disclosure law imposed little burden on NOM and had a valuable governmental interest in identifying the people who give more than $100 to a support or defeat a candidate, the Journal reports.

In the Maine case, the First Circuit concluded that Maine’s laws “neither erect a barrier to political speech nor limit its quantity. Rather, they promote the dissemination of information about those who deliver and finance political speech, thereby encouraging efficient operation of the marketplace of ideas

First Circuit Rules Against Anti-gay Marriage Group in Campaign-Finance Suits - Law Blog - WSJ

In essence, they did no such thing.

The issue here was that NOM did not want to be subject to the laws because they claimed they are not a PAC under the law. They are.

National Organization for Marriage ("NOM"), a New Jersey-based nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of providing "organized opposition to same-sex marriage in state legislatures," challenged state laws from both Maine and Rhode Island that require it to disclose its expenditures in the respective states. Both federal district judges considering the actions largely rejected NOM’s challenges and the First Circuit has also rejected the challenges in a lengthy opinion in National Organization for Marriage v. McKee, regarding the Maine laws, and a much more brief opinion on the Rhode Island statute in National Organization for Marriage v. Daluz, which relies upon McKee. In addition, NOM wanted the trial proceedings to be sealed, which the court also rejected.
In part, NOM challenged Maine’s definition of NOM as a PAC (political action committee), arguing that “any law defining an organization as a PAC is subject to strict scrutiny" because as "a matter of law, not fact," PAC status is burdensome and subjects an entity to "extensive regulations." The First Circuit found the argument unpersuasive, and further distinguished Citizens United, because Maine's provision does not condition political speech on the creation of a separate organization or fund, establishes no funding or independent expenditure restrictions, and imposes three simple obligations on an entity qualifying as a PAC: filing of a registration form disclosing basic information, quarterly reporting of election-related contributions and expenditures, and simple recordkeeping. The First Circuit therefore applied exacting scrutiny - - - rather than strict scrutiny - - - requiring a "substantial relation" between the law and a "sufficiently important governmental interest." Again citing Citizens United, the panel concluded that the goal of providing "the electorate with information as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent" to be such a "sufficiently important" governmental interest capable of supporting a disclosure law.

Constitutional Law Prof Blog: First Circuit Rejects NOM's Challenges to Disclosure Laws

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In Maine and Rhode Island, PACs were just denied the right to keep their campaign contributions secret by the 1st Circuit. I don't care about the issue, I have long held that Corporations, Unions and PACs being able to secretly funnel gargantuan amounts of money to candidates who will legislate as per their bidding, is the single biggest contributor to the corruption of our government.
Although the majority of Dems, Republicans and even Ron Paul support keeping this method of corruption behind closed doors and conducting "business as usual", I believe it has been the single largest source of government corruption in history (and it is relatively new!).
I hope other states and eventually the USSC will follow suit. I would personally, like to know who is buying the candidates that run for office.
I wish I could post a link but the American Lawyer charges $1300 a year for twelve issues and their software stops Cut & Pasting. I'm sure it will be verifiable soon.
Bravo 1st Circuit!

I don't want to give them a chance to be bought at all. I think the only solution is public financing of elections. Even if the secrecy is broken, our representitives would still be spending too much of their time "selling" their votes to whomever can bundle the largest amount of contributions, instead of doing our business. If we want our representitives to listen to us, we're going to have to foot the bill, IMO. Anything else is just "business as usual".

Have you seen what happens in the UK because when the elections are publicly financed? The Media outlets end up with massive amounts of political pull because no one can afford to actually get their message out, and the only people anyone hears about are the ones the media talks about.

A bit like Ron Paul here in the US. Since the media never mentions him, no one takes him seriously, even though he is the only ideologically pure candidate in the race.