...Is he funding / paying Feinstein, Durbin, Blumenthal, and rest of the scheming Democrats 'Herman Cain'ing Kavanaugh, too?
Anti-Kavanaugh protesters accosting senators have ties to Soros
"Soros also has ties to a liberal group running anti-Kavanuagh TV ads focused on his accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations. Demand Justice is funded by a nonprofit Sixteen Thirst Fund that has received more than $730,000 from the Soros foundation in 2016 and 2017.
Video of McConnell being confronted was posted on Twitter after being shot by Ady Barkan, a Center for Popular Democracy staffer."
I have not seen a single anti-kavanaugh ad in my region of Maine, and for the past 2 to 4 weeks, I see about 50 ads or more a day in support of him on the 24/7 channels... Who is paying for those ads in favor of Kavanaugh?
Who is it, that he is going to ''owe''?
Citizens United!
yep, good ole Kavanaugh lead to that crappy Citizen's United
Albert W. Alschuler is the Julius Kreeger professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Law School.
As a candidate, Donald Trump
called super PACs “very corrupt,” “a scam” and “a disaster,” castigating both his fellow Republicans and his Democratic opponent for being dependent on cash from these groups. In a nation in which most voters believe their own representatives in Congress have
sold their votes for cash or campaign contributions, his promise to “drain the swamp” resonated.
So much for that. With President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the president is attempting to place the man who created the super PAC on the highest court in the land.
When people complain about money in politics, they often bemoan the 2010 Supreme Court decision
Citizens United v. FEC. But before there was
Citizens United, there was
Emily’s List v. FEC, the 2009 case that allowed unlimited contributions to super PACs.
Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in
Emily’s List as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, striking down restrictions on contributions to independent political committees. In
the opinion, he declared that these committees “are constitutionally entitled to raise and spend unlimited money in support of candidates for elected office.” He reasoned that it was “implausible” that contributions to independent groups could corrupt candidates.
Trump had it right; Kavanaugh had it wrong. Contributions to super PACs
can corrupt. In the recent prosecution of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), for example, prosecutors
alleged that a co-defendant made two $300,000 contributions to a super PAC supporting Menendez’s reelection in exchange for the senator’s aid in resolving a Medicare billing dispute. Although a judge concluded after a hung jury that the government had not proved its case, he
ruled that designating a super PAC as the recipient of a payment cannot legalize bribery or make bribery a First Amendment right.
For 42 years, the Supreme Court
has upheld the constitutionality of limiting contributions to candidates, but Kavanaugh’s ruling provided an easy way around the limits — allowing donors to give millions of dollars to support a candidate so long as the money goes to a group “independent” of the candidate. No legislator voted for this topsy-turvy system of campaign financing, and no sane legislator ever would.
In fact, Kavanaugh appeared ready to go further. He acknowledged that his ruling would create an “asymmetry” between how the law treats money going to independent groups and money going directly to candidates. His solution? Raise or eliminate the limits on contributions to parties and candidates.
Opinion | Brett Kavanaugh, the man who created the super PAC
