Court Strikes Down Overall Limits On Campaign Contributions

[theeedude]

To take a page from the multitude of abortion threads or Obamacare threads: "It's constitutional. Deal with it."

For now. All these 5-4 Roberts court decisions will be flushed down the toilet once the court composition flips 5-4 the other way. I hope Roberts is still on the court to watch his legacy demolished wholesale.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So what is your complaint then? It sounds like you would rather not take responsibility for the electorate electing scumbags and instead blame money. What an easy scapegoat.

Part of the problem is that we've set up a government that specifically rewards greed and corruption; the people most likely to seek a career in politics aren't altruistic, they want power. But that's a systemic problem that won't be addressed based solely on campaign finance laws; we won't realize any change until we've completely scrapped the system which results in two-party power. You want actual change, end ALL political donations, publicly fund elections, completely redistrict the country to end ALL gerrymandered districts, and create a new system of proportional representation that does away with the stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have on the political power structure in this country. That and redefine public corruption as an act of treason punishable by death. None of those things will EVER happen because the people currently in power have no incentive to give that power up, so I don't think we have too much to worry about with regards to corruption and money in politics.

 

[Jimzz]

I wish I could understand where the myth that there was no money in politics before Citizens United v. FEC came from. That decision came down in 2010, so if we look at statistics for donors from 1989-2008...

Feel free to compare the figures from 1989-2014, the old top donors are the new top donors and their favorite parties haven't changed.

tl;dr - much ado about nothing

Actually your link proves what most are saying. Your link list PUBLIC money given, not dark or funneled money.

The Koch Corp has given a lot more than many on that list yet they do not show up. Its known they have spent over 25million in 2014 elections alone, let alone over 10years. There are unions that spend more in 1 year than most on your public list, yet they barley show up. etc...

The last president election over a billion was spent, yet your list has the largest donor in the $40 million range spread out over 10 years. Where's all the other money coming from then?

1 thing many are fighting more than the limits is the disclosure laws. They don't want people to know who gets the money and how much.

 

[Bowfinger]

Good ruling. For the dimwits (like the OP) that didn't bother to actually read the arguments, the court basically said that there has to be justification in order to restrict someone's first amendment right to spend / give money as they please. Corruption is used as justification to limit contributions to a single candidate, so the court allowed those limits to stand. Nobody was able to demonstrate in any way that aggregate limits on giving in any way prevented corruption. You can't just take away fundamental rights without demonstrable justification.

Looks logical, so of course the left wing loonies will go battie over it.

In other words, corruption is already so pervasive that such token constraints won't really do any good. Therefore, throw open the door even further.

We, the People, will not get our government back until we drive a stake through the fiction that money -- i.e., bribery -- is protected by the First Amendment. Not all "speech" is the same, and not all speech is equally protected. Even if we accept that money is a form of speech, it is also a poison that is toxic to democracy.

 

[Atreus21]

For now. All these 5-4 Roberts court decisions will be flushed down the toilet once the court composition flips 5-4 the other way. I hope Roberts is still on the court to watch his legacy demolished wholesale.

Good luck with that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Part of the problem is that we've set up a government that specifically rewards greed and corruption; the people most likely to seek a career in politics aren't altruistic, they want power. But that's a systemic problem that won't be addressed based solely on campaign finance laws; we won't realize any change until we've completely scrapped the system which results in two-party power. You want actual change, end ALL political donations, publicly fund elections, completely redistrict the country to end ALL gerrymandered districts, and create a new system of proportional representation that does away with the stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have on the political power structure in this country. That and redefine public corruption as an act of treason punishable by death. None of those things will EVER happen because the people currently in power have no incentive to give that power up, so I don't think we have too much to worry about with regards to corruption and money in politics.

Well said, sir.

 

[Atreus21]

In other words, corruption is already so pervasive that such token constraints won't really do any good. Therefore, throw open the door even further.

We, the People, will not get our government back until we drive a stake through the fiction that money -- i.e., bribery -- is protected by the First Amendment. Not all "speech" is the same, and not all speech is equally protected. Even if we accept that money is a form of speech, it is also a poison that is toxic to democracy.

So should people be allowed to donate to campaigns at all?

If a right to privacy can be gleaned by the SCOTUS as existing in the "penumbra" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, I think how you spend your money can reasonably be called an expression, protected by rights to free expression.

 

[Genx87]

Because we live in the real world, and the minority of people who are so upstanding that they are immune to corruption are also so upstanding that they don't want to subject themselves and their family to such a filthy process and political environment.

And you believe that cutting off the supply of money prevents corrupting of corruptible people?

 

[BUnit1701]

Part of the problem is that we've set up a government that specifically rewards greed and corruption; the people most likely to seek a career in politics aren't altruistic, they want power. But that's a systemic problem that won't be addressed based solely on campaign finance laws; we won't realize any change until we've completely scrapped the system which results in two-party power. You want actual change, end ALL political donations, publicly fund elections, completely redistrict the country to end ALL gerrymandered districts, and create a new system of proportional representation that does away with the stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have on the political power structure in this country. That and redefine public corruption as an act of treason punishable by death. None of those things will EVER happen because the people currently in power have no incentive to give that power up, so I don't think we have too much to worry about with regards to corruption and money in politics.

A thousand times, this! If the public at large could/would pull their heads out of their TVs, smartphones, and collective asses, get involved at the local level and promote and support candidates not owned and selected by the establishment bosses, we might get some real progress in this country.

I love how everyone complaining about this doesn't seem to want to address the root problem. If all it takes to win an election is having more commercials than the other guy, the money to buy those commercials is not the problem. A dumbed down population that is swayed so easily is.

 

[Genx87]

Wow, you are really that naive? Corrupt politicians don't go around with a sign that says they are corrupt. They get contributions and then some time later they "coincidentally" vote for things that are beneficial to the contributor because they "believe" in those things. Since they are the ones who get money, they will drown out the message of those who are just regular folks trying to stand up to this kind of corruption. Average Joe doesn't have $5M to buy the whole Congress in individual contributions.

I am addressing the core issue with the corruption within our system. People elect scumbags to office. You seem to be under some belief if we limit the ability of people to contribute to candidates it will stamp out this corruption we both agree is a problem. How has that worked so far? Who is being naive here?

 

[Atreus21]

A thousand times, this! If the public at large could/would pull their heads out of their TVs, smartphones, and collective asses, get involved at the local level and promote and support candidates not owned and selected by the establishment bosses, we might get some real progress in this country.

I love how everyone complaining about this doesn't seem to want to address the root problem. If all it takes to win an election is having more commercials than the other guy, the money to buy those commercials is not the problem. A dumbed down population that is swayed so easily is.

Hence the conclusion: The populace will not be roused except by a grave and direct threat to their day to day routine.

 

[fskimospy]

I wish I could understand where the myth that there was no money in politics before Citizens United v. FEC came from. That decision came down in 2010, so if we look at statistics for donors from 1989-2008...

Feel free to compare the figures from 1989-2014, the old top donors are the new top donors and their favorite parties haven't changed.

tl;dr - much ado about nothing

First, there is no myth that there was no money in politics pre CU. I've never heard anyone say that ever. Also as others mentioned, you're only looking at public donations, which is misleading.

The Washington Post put together a series of graphs detailing pre and post CU spending on elections. The change is pretty enormous.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/t...citizens-united-changed-politics-in-6-charts/

 

[Bowfinger]

So should people be allowed to donate to campaigns at all?

I've increasingly shifted to believing that we need to eliminate all private campaign funding. Unfortunately, that leaves us with some sort of public campaign funding, which is a huge can of worms vulnerable to its own set of abuses. In short, I don't know how to best solve the problem. I just know that our current system of effectively unlimited bribery has created pervasive corruption (and yes, I mean that on both sides of the aisle).

 

[Bowfinger]

And you believe that cutting off the supply of money prevents corrupting of corruptible people?

Prevents? Of course not. But it impedes it, and it makes bribery clearly illegal again.

 

[PokerGuy]

In other words, corruption is already so pervasive that such token constraints won't really do any good. Therefore, throw open the door even further.

This sounds like a similar argument for the gun-grabber nuts who want do enact legislation to restrict gun rights without having a shred of evidence that shows that the legislation would have the intended effect. If you want to curb someone's right to spend THEIR money or give it to whomever they want, you'd better have a solid reason for doing so, including evidence supporting the idea that the restrictions will actually accomplish the goals.

We, the People, will not get our government back until we drive a stake through the fiction that money -- i.e., bribery -- is protected by the First Amendment.

Get our government back?? We elect these clowns, so we get exactly what we deserve. There is NO evidence to suggest that setting aggregate caps on donations or contributions solves any problem -- at all.

Even if we accept that money is a form of speech, it is also a poison that is toxic to democracy.

Being able to spend your money they way you see fit, including giving it to whomever you want, is core to basic freedom. Buying a print add articulating a position is no less free speech than standing on the corner with a bullhorn articulating that same position.

I'm still waiting to have someone articulate just how limiting aggregate contributions fixes anything. The court let stand limits on contributions to individuals, on the grounds that it is conceivable that such limits could reduce direct bribery etc, but that argument simply doesn't hold water on aggregate contributions, and was correctly thrown out.

 

[IGBT]

corporations are people.

 

[CitizenKain]

This sounds like a similar argument for the gun-grabber nuts who want do enact legislation to restrict gun rights without having a shred of evidence that shows that the legislation would have the intended effect. If you want to curb someone's right to spend THEIR money or give it to whomever they want, you'd better have a solid reason for doing so, including evidence supporting the idea that the restrictions will actually accomplish the goals.



Get our government back?? We elect these clowns, so we get exactly what we deserve. There is NO evidence to suggest that setting aggregate caps on donations or contributions solves any problem -- at all.



Being able to spend your money they way you see fit, including giving it to whomever you want, is core to basic freedom. Buying a print add articulating a position is no less free speech than standing on the corner with a bullhorn articulating that same position.

I'm still waiting to have someone articulate just how limiting aggregate contributions fixes anything. The court let stand limits on contributions to individuals, on the grounds that it is conceivable that such limits could reduce direct bribery etc, but that argument simply doesn't hold water on aggregate contributions, and was correctly thrown out.

We already know you are a complete fucking idiot, you don't need to keep posting to remind everyone about it.

 

[Bowfinger]

This sounds like a similar argument for the gun-grabber nuts who want do enact legislation to restrict gun rights without having a shred of evidence that shows that the legislation would have the intended effect. If you want to curb someone's right to spend THEIR money or give it to whomever they want, you'd better have a solid reason for doing so, including evidence supporting the idea that the restrictions will actually accomplish the goals.

Huh? I wasn't making an argument, I was paraphrasing the court's majority opinion, or at least your presentation of their reasoning. For the record, I agree most gun control legislation is pointless for precisely that reasoning, that there are already so many guns out there that adding purchasing restrictions isn't going to have any real impact.

Get our government back?? We elect these clowns, so we get exactly what we deserve.

That's a good sound bite, but it isn't really true. People's votes are readily manipulated through the science of marketing (i.e., propaganda). The most effective marketing comes from those with deep pockets, people who can hire the marketing, production, and distribution expertise to push the buttons that manipulate the public into supporting candidates and agendas. That is one way that money corrupts democracy, by giving an elite few undue influence over voters.

There is NO evidence to suggest that setting aggregate caps on donations or contributions solves any problem -- at all.

Being able to spend your money they way you see fit, including giving it to whomever you want, is core to basic freedom. Buying a print add articulating a position is no less free speech than standing on the corner with a bullhorn articulating that same position.

I'm still waiting to have someone articulate just how limiting aggregate contributions fixes anything. The court let stand limits on contributions to individuals, on the grounds that it is conceivable that such limits could reduce direct bribery etc, but that argument simply doesn't hold water on aggregate contributions, and was correctly thrown out.

Limiting aggregate spending somewhat limits the number of politicians one can buy. If special interests can give $2600 to every member of Congress, they have a much easier path to getting their legislation passed. That said, I agree there enough other ways to indirectly bribe Congressmen that the aggregate spending limit was probably only a minor hurdle.

 

[theeedude]

Huh? I wasn't making an argument, I was paraphrasing the court's majority opinion, or at least your presentation of their reasoning. For the record, I agree most gun control legislation is pointless for precisely that reasoning, that there are already so many guns out there that adding purchasing restrictions isn't going to have any real impact.


That's a good sound bite, but it isn't really true. People's votes are readily manipulated through the science of marketing (i.e., propaganda). The most effective marketing comes from those with deep pockets, people who can hire the marketing, production, and distribution expertise to push the buttons that manipulate the public into supporting candidates and agendas. That is one way that money corrupts democracy, by giving an elite few undue influence over voters.


Limiting aggregate spending somewhat limits the number of politicians one can buy. If special interests can give $2600 to every member of Congress, they have a much easier path to getting their legislation passed. That said, I agree there enough other ways to indirectly bribe Congressmen that the aggregate spending limit was probably only a minor hurdle.

The Roberts court is working hard to open up more even ways to indirectly bribe Congressmen, with Citizens United and this decision. And after they are corrupt the political system even more, they'll say, well, the system is already corrupt, what's the point of having any campaign laws.

 

[Atreus21]

I've increasingly shifted to believing that we need to eliminate all private campaign funding. Unfortunately, that leaves us with some sort of public campaign funding, which is a huge can of worms vulnerable to its own set of abuses. In short, I don't know how to best solve the problem. I just know that our current system of effectively unlimited bribery has created pervasive corruption (and yes, I mean that on both sides of the aisle).

I can't think of a good solution either, frankly. But I don't think it's right to tell people to whom they can and can't willingly give their money.

I think Genx has it right. If the issue is the election of corrupt people, then that rightly is laid at the feet of those who vote for them.

EDIT: I'm all in favor of very strict disclosure laws. I think that's a justifiable infringement on the right to privacy.

 

[DrPizza]

I think Genx has it right. If the issue is the election of corrupt people, then that rightly is laid at the feet of those who vote for them..

And when we have a choice of two corrupt people to choose from?

 

[Atreus21]

And when we have a choice of two corrupt people to choose from?

Then we choose the lesser, or we choose neither. Democracy, like capitalism, isn't perfect. It's simply the best of our poor options.

 

[Genx87]

And when we have a choice of two corrupt people to choose from?

Reject both and demand better candidates? We like to complain about corruption and stupidity in this country. But then act corrupt and stupid when it comes time to clean out corrutped officials. Tossing our hands in the air is no solution to the issue.

 

[Jhhnn]

Limiting aggregate spending somewhat limits the number of politicians one can buy. If special interests can give $2600 to every member of Congress, they have a much easier path to getting their legislation passed. That said, I agree there enough other ways to indirectly bribe Congressmen that the aggregate spending limit was probably only a minor hurdle.

It's not about Congress. It's about all of the thousands of other local races where $2600 is a substantial amount, maybe more than anybody ever spent to gain that office.

This decision amplifies the power of wealth enormously in that regard, as I pointed out earlier. 10,000 candidates- $26M. Chump change for the financial elite.

At the state & local level, the right wing nut cases will likely be crawling out of the woodwork.

At least donors have to put their name on it, unlike the other money laundering methods commonly employed.

 

[Incorruptible]

To take a page from the multitude of abortion threads or Obamacare threads: "It's constitutional. Deal with it."

This. They love to say this BS when it comes to abortions/obamacare but now suddenly have a problem.

And we thought our politicians were corrupt before. Wait until we start seeing the effects of this ruling.

I am getting really tired of the current USSC regularly ruling that the rich can buy greater rights than the rest of us.

Yet it's alright for liberals to give different groups of people different rights? Such as the IRS targeting the Tea Party.

Good ruling. For the dimwits (like the OP) that didn't bother to actually read the arguments, the court basically said that there has to be justification in order to restrict someone's first amendment right to spend / give money as they please. Corruption is used as justification to limit contributions to a single candidate, so the court allowed those limits to stand. Nobody was able to demonstrate in any way that aggregate limits on giving in any way prevented corruption. You can't just take away fundamental rights without demonstrable justification.

Looks logical, so of course the left wing loonies will go battie over it.

Agree. This is free speech.

This is a good ruling and doesn't surprise me the idiotic left are so outraged over this. This is a screw you to them. They want big government yet now complain about it.

If you really wanted to address this issue then reduce the power of government.