SCOTUS knocks down limits on federal campaign donations

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

Supreme Court strikes down limits on federal campaign donations
By Robert Barnes and Matea Gold, Updated: Wednesday, April 2, 10:30 AM
A split Supreme Court Wednesday struck down limits on the total amount of money an individual may spend on political candidates as a violation of free speech rights, a decision sure to increase the role of money in political campaigns.

The 5 to 4 decision sparked a sharp dissent from liberal justices, who said the decision reflects a wrong-headed hostility to campaign finance laws that the court’s conservatives showed in Citizens United v. FEC , which allowed corporate spending on elections.

“If Citizens United opened a door,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in reading his dissent from the bench, “today’s decision we fear will open a floodgate.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion striking down the aggregate limits of what an individual may spend on candidates and political committees. He noted that the limit on individual contributions to a specific candidate was not affected by the ruling.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the crucial fifth vote for overturning the limits, but said the others should have gone further to strike all contribution limits.

Breyer was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The aggregate totals that the court struck down in the case — McCutcheon v. FEC --imposed a $48,600 limit on contributions to candidates during a two-year election cycle, plus $74,600 total on giving to political parties and committees.

The base limits on contributions left unchanged by the ruling allow donations to candidates of $2,600 for both primary and general elections.

The decision provides a financial boost to political parties, which have lost their dominance with the rise of super PACs and other independent political groups that can raise unlimited sums.

“Today’s court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC is an important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust, transparent political discourse,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, which brought the case with Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman.

But advocates for reducing the role of big donors in politics decried the ruling, saying it will further amplify the influence of the wealthy in campaigns. By striking the overall cap on how much individuals can give to federal candidates and parties, the decision opens the door to the creation of super-sized joint fundraising committees that could solicit checks for more than $3 million, they say.

“With its Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, the Supreme Court has turned our representative system of government into a sandbox for America’s billionaires and millionaires to play in,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, in a statement.

source

**LordofHats**

Not surprised. Figured this would go out eventually when limits of corps went out the window (cause corps are people don't you know). But lets be honest;

America’s billionaires and millionaires to play in

Cause it wasn't already?

**Frazzled**

Not liking this.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Not liking this.

Same.

I see the argument, I just don't agree with it.

**Co'tor Shas**

And just when I thought it couldn't get worse. *sigh*

**Easy E**

Well, this Democracy thing was fun while it lasted. Long live Oligarchy!

**FirePainter**

And so the spiral down the drain continues.......

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
Not surprised. Figured this would go out eventually when limits of corps went out the window (cause corps are people don't you know). But lets be honest;

America’s billionaires and millionaires to play in

Cause it wasn't already?

Pretty much... yeah.

Basically what this means is that before today one could basically donate $2,600 to 47 candidates ($2,600 x 47= $122,200). Now you can donate $2,600 to 535 candidates (435 in the House and 100 in the Senate).

In some ways, campaign contributions are speech and speech can't be regulated.

I'd bet campaign consultant are happy...

**LordofHats**

That kind of money already found its way around before. It's just that now you can do it without a PAC. If anything, completely bypassing PACs in campaign fund raising has a few positives (and a few negatives) but really.

I'm more speaking in what reality isn't US politics the play ground of the richs? Most federal politicians are quite affluent, and they make friends with other affluent people, etc etc. That's not new or somethign that's only going to happen because of this decision. It just strikes me as a weird thing to comment on.

**Dreadclaw69**

Easy E wrote:
Well, this Democracy thing was fun while it lasted. Long live Oligarchy!

Maybe we can get some tips off Putin

**whembly**

Now that I think about this... this isn't necessary a bad thing. At least, I don't think it makes things worst.

One of the big knocks on Super PACs is that their donors can legally conceal their names... donating directly to candidates’ campaigns can’t.

EDIT: wait...that's not quite right... 501c4 organizations don't have to disclose donors...

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
Now that I think about this... this isn't necessary a bad thing. At least, I don't think it makes things worst.

One of the big knocks on Super PACs is that their donors can legally conceal their names... donating directly to candidates’ campaigns can’t.

EDIT: wait...that's not quite right... 501c4 organizations don't have to disclose donors...

I think the current trend is to donate to a an organization that doesn't have to disclose, then that organization donates to the PACs, then the PACs do their thing. That way the PACs disclose that they got their money from "Superfriends for a more truthy America" and the Superfriends can keep the actual donors secret.

I know free speech and all that, but considering that we are pretending that we are still a representative democracy it seems absolutely stupid that giving money to politicians that don't represent you is allowed.

In a typical cycle you vote for how many people? President, a Senator, a Representative (repeat for whatever system your state has setup), Governor, State Offices, County Offices, City Offices. If the person running doesn't represent you, then why should you care about who wins the election. I know that this is an argument that doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, but I think it's stupid to influence elections that don't represent you.

Of course the idea of us being a representative democracy nowadays is pretty much a joke and we would probably be better off with awarding statewide offices by statewide percentages, but that is a whole other discussion...

**Spacemanvic**

We're actually a representative REPUBLIC d-usa. Or at least, we were.

The DC prostitutes (representatives) have always been about the $$$. Then again, it's like this the world over.

Anarchy anybody?

**Da Boss**

Yeah, because it's a clear cut choice between anarchy, and some form of (gasp!) regulation of the system.

**Co'tor Shas**

Politicians would have to get there money from the people and not the corporations?!? That's un-Amarican!

**d-usa**

Spacemanvic wrote:
We're actually a representative REPUBLIC d-usa.

I'm going to have to block every person that makes that stupid statement and thinks that us being a republic somehow doesn't make us a democracy...

**Co'tor Shas**

Yep, we have a Democratic Republic, like most countries on earth. Most people seem to assume that democracy only means direct.

**Spacemanvic**

d-usa wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
We're actually a representative REPUBLIC d-usa.

I'm going to have to block every person that makes that stupid statement and thinks that us being a republic somehow doesn't make us a democracy...

The stupidity starts when someone calls the US form of government a democracy when in fact, it is a representative republic. Despite your protestations.

For those who demonstrably lack the education:

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

Source:
http://thisnation.com/question/011.html

**Co'tor Shas**

Spacemanvic wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
We're actually a representative REPUBLIC d-usa.

I'm going to have to block every person that makes that stupid statement and thinks that us being a republic somehow doesn't make us a democracy...

The stupidity starts when someone calls the US form of government a democracy when in fact, it is a representative republic. Despite your protestations.

We have a Democratic-Republic, Democracy does not just mean direct democracy. It is a democratic republic because we elect our leaders.

Edit: Well technically we have a federal republic, but it is the same thing, just semantics.

**Spacemanvic**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
We're actually a representative REPUBLIC d-usa.

I'm going to have to block every person that makes that stupid statement and thinks that us being a republic somehow doesn't make us a democracy...

The stupidity starts when someone calls the US form of government a democracy when in fact, it is a representative republic. Despite your protestations.

We have a Democratic-Republic, Democracy does not just mean direct democracy. It is a democratic republic because we elect our leaders.

For those who demonstrably lack the education:

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

Source:
http://thisnation.com/question/011.html

**Co'tor Shas**

Check my post again, there is an edit. And as I said we do not have a direct democracy. That does not mean we do not have democracy.

**Spacemanvic**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Check my post again, there is an edit. And as I said we do not have a direct democracy. That does not mean we do not have democracy.

What flavor is your foot?

**Co'tor Shas**

I don't see what you mean. I have never said that the US is a direct democracy.

**d-usa**

Spacemanvic wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
We're actually a representative REPUBLIC d-usa.

I'm going to have to block every person that makes that stupid statement and thinks that us being a republic somehow doesn't make us a democracy...

The stupidity starts when someone calls the US form of government a democracy when in fact, it is a representative republic. Despite your protestations.

That little piece of text doesn't do anything to disprove the statement that we are a representative democracy, and half that statement is completely wrong. Let me break down for you:

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy.

Actually it is both. The fact that the first sentence is wrong to begin with should surprise me, but the website is written by a single guy who got his degree from Oklahoma so it's not a big shock that he would get it wrong. I'm glad that you base your political knowledge on a website written by some stranger on the internet though.

Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums.

Hey look. We totally do that. So according to your own source, we are a democracy. We have town hall meetings, we have ballot initiatives, we have referendums. All decided directly by voters.

A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf.

A republic means that power is deprived from the people (although in what way is not directly related to the fact that we are a republic), it also means that the head of state is non-hereditary or divinely appointed (Although with our family dynasties of politicians and politicians who keep on claiming that God told them to run the more important definition is in flux). You can be a direct democracy and still be a republic.

The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy.

Good thing we are not a pure democracy.

Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

And that's why we don't have a pure democracy. We have a mix of direct democracy, and indirect democracy through our representatives and the electoral college. Being a republic doesn't invalidate any of that.

**Maddermax**

The USA is actually a Liberal Democracy

That oughta blow spacemanvic's mind

**Bran Dawri**

The USA has been an oligarchy in all but name for quite some time now...

**Ouze**

The discussion on the finer points of what makes of a democracy or a republic are not really salient to the topic, please. We've done this without resolution previous and I don't imagine that a consensus will be reached in this thread.

**d-usa**

I'll just point back to my first post and pretend the others didn't happen...

**Ouze**

As in you cannot donate to politicians who are out of state, unless it's national? That seems problematic, freedom of association wise.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
As in you cannot donate to politicians who are out of state, unless it's national? That seems problematic, freedom of association wise.

Huh?

That doesn't seem right.