Court Strikes Down Overall Limits On Campaign Contributions

[Zorba]

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.

So basically don't vote in any election from here on out? In Oklahoma I can't vote in primaries, so all I have are two poor choices in each election, but if I didn't vote you and/or others would say if I didn't vote I can't complain.

 

[theeedude]

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.

So it should be OK to give bribes, since it's not "right to tell people who they can and can't willingly give their money?"

 

[nageov3t]

I'm surprised at the partisan breakdown on this... having won the last 2 presidential elections via vastly outspending Republicans, one would assume that Democrats would embrace more money.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm surprised at the partisan breakdown on this... having won the last 2 presidential elections via vastly outspending Republicans, one would assume that Democrats would embrace more money.

Republicans outspent Democrats in 2012.

Also, there isn't much evidence that superior fundraising matters that much in presidential contests. The candidates are already well known, well financed, etc. Where money really matters is in small elections with low name recognition, low resources, etc.

 

[PokerGuy]

So it should be OK to give bribes, since it's not "right to tell people who they can and can't willingly give their money?"

You just don't seem to get it. People donating their money to someone, or using their money to buy ads on tv etc, isn't a bribe. Can it become a bribe? Sure it can. But the problem isn't the people giving that money, it's the people who hold the power who do the bidding of others -- in other words, the problem is the politicians.

Trying to muzzle people and prevent them from giving their money to whomever they want won't solve anything, we've already seen that. After all, these restrictions were already in effect and have been for a long time. Have you seen a major decrease in money controlling politics? No? Me neither

 

[Jaskalas]

This is the Court that threw out voting rights...

You have no right to vote... yes, I'm glad we clarified that. :hmm:

 

[theeedude]

You just don't seem to get it. People donating their money to someone, or using their money to buy ads on tv etc, isn't a bribe. Can it become a bribe? Sure it can. But the problem isn't the people giving that money, it's the people who hold the power who do the bidding of others -- in other words, the problem is the politicians.

LOL, you really think politicians are the ones who hold the power, and not the people whose money gets those politicians elected? Here is a hint for you: people who hold the power don't do the bidding of others, they have others do their bidding.

Trying to muzzle people and prevent them from giving their money to whomever they want won't solve anything, we've already seen that. After all, these restrictions were already in effect and have been for a long time. Have you seen a major decrease in money controlling politics? No? Me neither

You can thank the Citizens United decision by this same corrupt Roberts court for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

You just don't seem to get it. People donating their money to someone, or using their money to buy ads on tv etc, isn't a bribe. Can it become a bribe? Sure it can. But the problem isn't the people giving that money, it's the people who hold the power who do the bidding of others -- in other words, the problem is the politicians.

Trying to muzzle people and prevent them from giving their money to whomever they want won't solve anything, we've already seen that. After all, these restrictions were already in effect and have been for a long time. Have you seen a major decrease in money controlling politics? No? Me neither

This whole "money is speech" routine is an abomination.

What it really means is that people who have no money, or enormously less, have no voice, or certainly none that can be heard above the din of the well financed right wing noise machine. It directly contradicts the principles of egalitarian democracy in a way that only the uber-rich & their blind toadies can truly appreciate.

How would we see a decrease in money controlling politics from limiting statutes that have been in place for a long time? It's an oxymoron.

Yet, somehow, ruling those statutes unconstitutional won't increase money controlling politics, if only in the minds of propagandists & the very well indoctrinated.

 

[PokerGuy]

LOL, you really think politicians are the ones who hold the power

They at least nominally hold the actual governmental power. The fact that they are bought isn't the fault of the buyers. Don't hate the player, hate the game

You can thank the Citizens United decision by this same corrupt Roberts court for it.

hahaha, yeah, because before that ruling, it's a good thing money was not involved in politics at all Such a hack.

 

[theeedude]

They at least nominally hold the actual governmental power. The fact that they are bought isn't the fault of the buyers. Don't hate the player, hate the game

Campaign finance laws are what sets the rules of the game.
But you keep on believing that the power is with the politicians and not those who buy them.

 

[Vic]

All it is is free speech. Job creators merely have more speech to give.

You realize that by using the term "job creators" that you basically acknowledge that you're a slave, right?

 

[Incorruptible]

This whole "money is speech" routine is an abomination.

What it really means is that people who have no money, or enormously less, have no voice, or certainly none that can be heard above the din of the well financed right wing noise machine. It directly contradicts the principles of egalitarian democracy in a way that only the uber-rich & their blind toadies can truly appreciate.

How would we see a decrease in money controlling politics from limiting statutes that have been in place for a long time? It's an oxymoron.

Yet, somehow, ruling those statutes unconstitutional won't increase money controlling politics, if only in the minds of propagandists & the very well indoctrinated.

No it's not. People have the right to voice their complaints. It's alright for you thugs to steal money from the rich for welfare yet when they voice their opinions you get upset.

 

[PokerGuy]

This whole "money is speech" routine is an abomination.

The freedom to spend your money how and where you choose (including who you want to give it to) is free speech.

What it really means is that people who have no money, or enormously less, have no voice, or certainly none that can be heard above the din of the well financed right wing noise machine.

Apparently you forget that the left raises just as much money (if not more so). In your partisan hack world only one side raises money, you conveniently forget that money flows in both directions. Money doesn't have a party, it flows to whatever party will do it's bidding.

How would we see a decrease in money controlling politics from limiting statutes that have been in place for a long time? It's an oxymoron.

Yet, somehow, ruling those statutes unconstitutional won't increase money controlling politics, if only in the minds of propagandists & the very well indoctrinated.

Apparently reading and comprehension escapes you. These restrictions were already in place, and obviously did nothing. The court simply looked at them and said "you can't restrict people's rights without having a solid reason to justify doing so". Since nobody has such a reason, it got tossed. Very simple.

Now we have to hear the whiners blathering about how horrible this is, when in reality it changes nothing. Those with the real money will continue to buy both sides as they always have, and the fools on either side will continue to blather and whine about what the other side does and how their evil money corrupts everything

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You realize that by using the term "job creators" that you basically acknowledge that you're a slave, right?

Literally everything Sonikku posts is sarcastic/satire. He's like a poor man's Stephen Colbert.

 

[PokerGuy]

Campaign finance laws are what sets the rules of the game.
But you keep on believing that the power is with the politicians and not those who buy them.

Campaign finance laws that were in place did nothing to change the rules of the game. Last I checked, the amount of money pouring in on both sides of the political divide continues to increase unabated as it always has. The more power you give government, the more power you hand to those that can purchase and control that government.

Trying to control the influence of money on politics is a lot like the "war on drugs". As long as their is demand, nothing you do will stop the supply. As long as the politicians have the power and demand money and sell influence, the money will ALWAYS find a way to get there.

 

[CitizenKain]

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



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



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.

Do you even have the slightest idea what people are talking about in here? I know you are a literal child living in your parents basement, but try to keep up a little bit here.

 

[Incorruptible]

Do you even have the slightest idea what people are talking about in here? I know you are a literal child living in your parents basement, but try to keep up a little bit here.

Oh look! The leftist is upset because I oppose him. This is a good ruling because it protects freedom of speech and it's a big screw you to you and your ilk.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Campaign finance laws that were in place did nothing to change the rules of the game. Last I checked, the amount of money pouring in on both sides of the political divide continues to increase unabated as it always has. The more power you give government, the more power you hand to those that can purchase and control that government.

So if we take power away from government, who does it go to? The corporations who are currently buying up the government? What changes? In our society, money has always been power, regardless of whether it's the government, the corporations, the industrialists, whatever. The trick is in getting money out of politics, not getting power out of politics, thus weakening the connection between money and power. There's no push for that to happen because the only people who could implement the change would suffer if it came to pass.

 

[Incorruptible]

So if we take power away from government, who does it go to? The corporations who are currently buying up the government? What changes? In our society, money has always been power, regardless of whether it's the government, the corporations, the industrialists, whatever. The trick is in getting money out of politics, not getting power out of politics, thus weakening the connection between money and power. There's no push for that to happen because the only people who could implement the change would suffer if it came to pass.

Take away the power from the government and ensure they obey the Constitution. Funny how liberals want their big government yet now are unhappy with the results.

 

[QuantumPion]

Apparently you forget that the left raises just as much money (if not more so). In your partisan hack world only one side raises money, you conveniently forget that money flows in both directions. Money doesn't have a party, it flows to whatever party will do it's bidding.

You haven't really quite hit on the real point here.

Typically money flows to both parties equally, otherwise they risk retaliation if the wrong side wins (e.g. Gibson Guitars).

Corporations giving money to the government aren't bribes to get favors. They are extortion payments to prevent harm. Is it any wonder that the government court just took away the limit to the amount of money the government is allowed to extort from the people?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this...

Before: If a billionaire wanted to donate the max contribution to a large number of candidates in local and state races all around the country, she/he was limited to about 20 such races before she/he hit the $48,600 aggregate limit.

Now: Said billionaire can donate $2,600 dollars to each of 500 candidates nationwide, increasing their influence 25-fold.

Is that not a consequence of this ruling?

If so, now said billionaire can also contribute that much money to each of thousands of candidates for state legislatures around the country. So multiply 25-fold by another 10 or 20. What the fuck!?

 

[theeedude]

Campaign finance laws that were in place did nothing to change the rules of the game. Last I checked, the amount of money pouring in on both sides of the political divide continues to increase unabated as it always has. The more power you give government, the more power you hand to those that can purchase and control that government.

Trying to control the influence of money on politics is a lot like the "war on drugs". As long as their is demand, nothing you do will stop the supply. As long as the politicians have the power and demand money and sell influence, the money will ALWAYS find a way to get there.

So we should just legalize bribery then? I mean money will always find a way, let's make it as easy as possible.

 

[Oldgamer]

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this...

Before: If a billionaire wanted to donate the max contribution to a large number of candidates in local and state races all around the country, she/he was limited to about 20 such races before she/he hit the $48,600 aggregate limit.

Now: Said billionaire can donate $2,600 dollars to each of 500 candidates nationwide, increasing their influence 25-fold.

Is that not a consequence of this ruling?

If so, now said billionaire can also contribute that much money to each of thousands of candidates for state legislatures around the country. So multiply 25-fold by another 10 or 20. What the fuck!?

Ding! Ding! Ding! You sir are a winner! Yep, that is pretty much what this means.

 

[Fern]

Am I reading this correctly? They are basically letting people contribute up to the max of $2600 for more candidates?

Yes, that's how I understand it too.

So, I don't think it's a big deal. Had they done away with the $2,600 limit it would be a problem.

So now Soros and Koch can spend another $2,600 on a local election they may not have before. Peanuts, really.

Fern

 

[Fern]

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.
-snip-

WTH is somebody going to be able to do with $2,600?

Buy another 100 cardboard signs that people stick in their front yards?

Here's how much state house and senate campaign costs (See table 3): http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=420&ext=2

Fern