Supreme Court allows more private money in election campaigns

[longknife]

Long Live Freedom of Speech in Campaign Donations!


Supreme Court lifts ban on aggregate campaign donations

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY, April 2, 2014

The decision represents another step toward easing decades-old restrictions on political contributions that were designed to combat corruption

Justices ease ground rules for wealthy donors
Base limits per donation remain, but overall limits lifted
Decision marks new round in debate over money in politics

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.

The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision frees the nation's wealthiest donors to have greater influence in federal elections.

This should actually thrill Dingy Harry instead of upsetting him as some blogs have indicated. It means PACs can contribute as much as they wish and the government cannot limit their participation in the election process.

Read more @ Supreme Court lifts ban on aggregate campaign donations

 

[Seawytch]

We're sure to get the best politicians money can buy!! (Just ask Sheldon)

 

[francoHFW]

Worst Supreme Court ever, to go with the worst party, voters, and propaganda machine= about 20 more years of Dems....There IS a limit to the stupidity, ignorance, greed, gulliibility, and racism of the American people...

 

[longknife]

Worst Supreme Court ever, to go with the worst party, voters, and propaganda machine= about 20 more years of Dems....There IS a limit to the stupidity, ignorance, greed, gulliibility, and racism of the American people...

I suppose you wouldn't mind one bit is SCOTUS told YOU who and what you could contribute to?

And how much?

 

[francoHFW]

The problem is big money from corporations, though actually that's going covert into org's, pacs, and instiututes, ie lobbyists and propaganda...What a greedy idiot Pub mess, fighting for pollution, deregulated cronyism and corruption, and screwing the workers and nonrich- see sig.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why should wealthy people not have freedom of speech? I recall when liberals supported the First Amendment. Now they do whatever they can to subvert it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Worst Supreme Court ever, to go with the worst party, voters, and propaganda machine= about 20 more years of Dems....There IS a limit to the stupidity, ignorance, greed, gulliibility, and racism of the American people...

I suppose you wouldn't mind one bit is SCOTUS told YOU who and what you could contribute to?

And how much?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Since franco seems to be in favor of limiting campaign contributions, by definition that means he doesn't mind the SCOTUS telling him how much he can contribute - since campaign finance laws would effect him too.

 

[Political Junky]

Government for sale.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Supreme Court allows more private money in election campaigns - CNN.com
he ruling means a wealthy liberal or conservative donor can give as much money as desired to federal election candidates across the country, as long as no candidate receives more than the $5,200 cap.

While most people lack the money to make such a large total donation to election campaigns, the ruling clears the way for more private money to enter the system.

In effect, it expands the loosening of campaign finance laws that occurred with the high court's Citizens United decision in 2010 that eased campaign spending by outside groups.
Yet some on the right feel Unions should not have this right.
If they do have the right the next step is to eliminate a workers right to organize.
Hopefully, every local political race is scrutinized by the local voters and look at where the big money comes from and make a real "local" decision to vote for someone they feel is best suited for
position. And they are not influenced by big outside money.

Damn, this is almost as stupid as the idiotic claims that Citizen's United undid over 100 years of precedents.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do any of the idiots commenting on this thread understand the actual issues? I suggest you all read the Breyer's dissent before you comment,

 

[francoHFW]

29- Of course it did...

 

[TemplarKormac]

I hate this ruling. If a man you elect is driven more by money than his convictions or by his constituents, what would be the point of having elections if your candidate was already bought and paid for before the first vote is cast?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Just a thought: If we have an issue with the amount of money that is attracted by politics, perhaps we should stop giving so much power to the government that gives them the incentive to spend in the first place.

 

[KNB]

If you Republicans hate big government so much then why do you always cheer for the rich pricks who own your government?

You hate the big awful government, right? Who do you think the big government works for? Us, the People? What makes you think that? The big oppressive government is forcing Ohitler's Marxist imperial will on the People, right? So the government doesn't work for the People. So then who does the government work for? Corporations that are now legally considered by the big oppressive government to be the "People".

So would the Republicans here please explain why you cheer for the rich who own your big government which enforces Odictator's Sharia laws?

 

[occupied]

Oh goody, another nail in the coffin of democracy, long live the great American plutocracy! The greatest plutocracy in the world.

 

[Disir]

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel either has no understanding of campaign finance, or is willfully misleading her readers. In either case, her column today about the Koch brothers’ political spending—which parrots a meme that has bounced around conservative blogs and websites like a bad chain e-mail—gets the facts about Koch spending versus union spending completely wrong.

In her column, “The Really Big Money? Not the Kochs,” Strassel cites a Center for Responsive Politics list to claim that unions “collectively spent $620,873,623 more than Koch Industries” on political races. Of course, if you actually visit this page on the CRP website, the list runs below a disclaimer noting that it does not include certain Super PAC spending or most undisclosed dark money spending, the preferred route for the Koch brothers for decades. In fact, the CRP site notes that union spending might appear inflated since unions’ traditional PAC spending is coupled with outside Super PAC spending. For the purposes of this chart, union spending is inflated compared to the giving of companies like Koch or Super PAC donors like Sheldon Adelson.

For the last election, Koch PACs spent $4.9 million in disclosed contributions (figures that appear on the chart referenced by Strassel). But they also spent over $407 million on undisclosed campaign entities, which does not show up in the CRP chart.



Republic Report broke down the figures for the last election and found that Koch groups alone spent more than double the combined political spending (including to undisclosed group) for the top ten unions combined. The chart includes union spending on dark money Democratic groups and Koch spending on dark money groups like Americans for Prosperity.

This undisclosed campaign system is nothing new for the Koch brothers. In 1995 and 1996, Koch set up a shell company called Triad Management to spend millions in secret money to help the Republican Party. Of course, this type of spending never shows up in databases like the one cited by Strassel.

All NRLB-regulated unions, on the other hand, disclose every outside payment. Payments that cannot be found through the FEC can be found on a database maintained by the Labor Department. Individuals and corporations are under no such similar disclosure rules. The Koch money identified recently by The Washington Post, the $407 million, relates only to money filtered through foundations and nonprofits. The money Koch spends as a corporate entity, as it has in the past, may have gone unreported.

The Koch Brothers Spent Twice as Much on the 2012 Election as the Top Ten Unions Combined | The Nation

Ya, you gotta love the rhetoric about how these asshats are now on par with the union.

 

[Little-Acorn]

SCOTUS has just ruled that the rich can try to buy the government.

A very different situation from what it was until now. Until now, only the media could buy the government, running all the campaign ads they wanted for or against any candidate or issue they wanted, under the guise of reporting "news", which was not restricted at all. Most everybody else was restricted.

No wonder the liberals are screaming about it. No longer do they have their monopoly where the media can run 100 stories showing conservatives in a bad light and only 4 showing them in a good light, while vice-versa for liberal candidates.

Now other people who might not feel the way the media does, can run lots of ads too! OH MY GOD!!!

 

[Disir]

Bullshit.

There is no liberal media. Where do you get this? It's corporate. Corporate. CORPORATE.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the dissenting side, took the unusual step of reading a summary of his opinion from the bench and said the “decision eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws.”

Yes, Mr. Breyer, that's exactly what it does. And your point was...??

 

[Little-Acorn]

There is no liberal media.

Poor liberals. All they can do is deny, deny, deny, and repeat their fibs over and over, hoping the tooth fairy will make them come true.