View Full Version : SCOTUS Strikes Down Overall Limits On Political Donations
Dealing a blow to campaign finance reform efforts, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a 5-4 decision that caps on aggregate amounts of political donations are unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s protections on freedom of speech, clearing the way for donors to devote vast sums to federal political campaigns.
http://time.com/#46738/supreme-court-mccutcheon-campaign-finance-law/
And so it goes...
Richard
All the laws they created just seemed to hurt the little guys and small orgamizations.
The really deep pockets just created different avenues for directing money to the "right guy".
I agree with the ruling.
More than likely to help the dems more if past trends continue. OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php) released a "Heavy Hitters" list of the top federal elections donors from 1989 to 2014.
By my count, there are 10 unions in the top 15 and 11 before the first Republican donor shows up at number 17. There are also, at least, 22 unions before the hated Koch Industries appears in 59th place.
Pat
Last hard class
04-03-2014, 15:45
PSM:
You meant to put that in Pink about the Koch brothers right?:D
That's a perfect example of using statistics to sell an idea. If you don't count Super PAC contributions and dark money the list is really misleading. Unions have different disclosure rules than individuals and corporations. Makes the money easier to track.
LHC
PSM:
You meant to put that in Pink about the Koch brothers right?:D
LHC
Nope. Wouldn't you like your business to grow into a major industry leader? Think of the write-offs. . .oh, and ROAD TRIPS! Yea, baby! :p :D
Pat
Interesting article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/02/breyers-dangerous-dissent-in-mccutcheon-the-campaign-finance-case/
“‘Ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption,’”
...why cant I understand why ingratiation and access are EXACTLY corruption.
I am not an educated guy so if I pile a giant heap of currency at your feet to essentially buy a little taste of "ingratiation" and by association access, how in hells half acre is that not the very illustration of political corruption?
Somebody help me understand so I don't loose faith in the SCOTUS like I have lost faith in the House, the Senate, and the POTUS
Somebody please educate me on this one.
“‘Ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption,’”
...why cant I understand why ingratiation and access are EXACTLY corruption.
I am not an educated guy so if I pile a giant heap of currency at your feet to essentially buy a little taste of "ingratiation" and by association access, how in hells half acre is that not the very illustration of political corruption?
Somebody help me understand so I don't loose faith in the SCOTUS like I have lost faith in the House, the Senate, and the POTUS
Somebody please educate me on this one.
It's only "corruption" if the politician's position on a subject is changed by it. How is giving money, for whatever reason, to a politician who's position you agree with corrupting that person or the system?
Pat
It's only "corruption" if the politician's position on a subject is changed by it. How is giving money, for whatever reason, to a politician who's position you agree with corrupting that person or the system?
Pat
Fair enough...
I may not agree, but I see your point.
I think the SCOTUS have to look at much more than the case at hand.
If Hollywood (as in the article) that is basically left leaning spends billions of dollars to forward a political/social position in multiple movies from the same company....should they be restricted by the Govt. because it is an unfair monetary advantage?
Very slippery slope when you start restricting individuals from giving their legally earned money to positions/ candidates they support.
Fair enough...
I may not agree, but I see your point.
I understand your position, also, as I used to share it. But, I've learned a bit more over the years. Money in campaigns of congressional elections (both chambers) should not be so important, but it is because of the direct election of senators and the overly large congressional districts.
If senators (following a repeal of the 17th Amendment) were appointed by the state's legislatures, there would be no need for them to fund raise to get elected. And, if the congressional districts were reduced to the original 20 to 30 thousand citizens money would not be as important or influential.
Also, simplifying the tax code would eliminate the tax incentive legislation that money can buy.
Pat
The Reaper
04-03-2014, 21:00
I understand your position, also, as I used to share it. But, I've learned a bit more over the years. Money in campaigns of congressional elections (both chambers) should not be so important, but it is because of the direct election of senators and the overly large congressional districts.
If senators (following a repeal of the 17th Amendment) were appointed by the state's legislatures, there would be no need for them to fund raise to get elected. And, if the congressional districts were reduced to the original 20 to 30 thousand citizens money would not be as important or influential.
Also, simplifying the tax code would eliminate the tax incentive legislation that money can buy.
Pat
So, state legislatures are free from corruption and cronyism?
TR
So, state legislatures are free from corruption and cronyism?
TR
Of course not, but they are much closer to the voters. Take AZ. We have two Senators that vote against the will of the state at almost every turn. Neither would be in DC if it was up to the legislature.
Plus, congress controls the tax and spending, not the senators.
ETA: Roughneck 91, a member of this site, was in the AZ State Legislature. Perhaps he could provide some insight on this.
Pat
So I have to ask...
If both US Senators from AZ consistently vote against the state, and the only reason they continue to get reelected is money, then how are they not corrupted by "legal" money?
Again, I completely get the slippery slope of the government legislating what I can spend my money on. If you want to spend a quarter of a million bucks paying for tomato stakes and posters to put yard signs up across the state of Arizona, then I agree that you should be able to pound signs in any ones front yard that cares to support you.
....................But I have become increasingly doubtful that the check for 250,000 dollars would go completely into paying for yard signs, billboards and ad time on TV and radio. I also find increasingly evident that the folks that can afford donate kind of money to what (unfortunately) has become a popularity contest, are not the same folks that are donating money because they are ideologically aligned with a politicians stance on gun control, same sex marriage, military spending, welfare, unemployment, foreign policy, or any other "ideological" issue. The guy that can afford a $250,000 campaign donation is probably donating because he "agrees" with that politicians stance on keeping my bullshit government contract open, or his stance on keeping the zoning laws constant that prevent me from paying additional business taxes...
In short, my base intent for donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political campaign is NOT to thank the distinguished senator from Arizona for voting "my" conscience on socially defining issues. My base intent is to remind him that I make 1.5 million a year off of his vote to renew my contract and that as long as I have my contract, I will continue putting a check for 250,000 bucks into his campaign slush fund.
Is altruism dead in America? Absolutely not.
Is it dead in politics? I think the REAL jury is still out on that one.
The Reaper
04-04-2014, 08:05
Of course not, but they are much closer to the voters. Take AZ. We have two Senators that vote against the will of the state at almost every turn. Neither would be in DC if it was up to the legislature.
Plus, congress controls the tax and spending, not the senators.
ETA: Roughneck 91, a member of this site, was in the AZ State Legislature. Perhaps he could provide some insight on this.
Pat
I live in NC.
The state legislature was controlled by Dims for more than 100 years, despite the repeated election of extremely conservative Republican Senators.
Trust me, if the Legislature appointed Senators, we would have been more than 100 years without seeing a single Republican appointed Senator.
TR
Tango three
04-04-2014, 09:31
It's only "corruption" if the politician's position on a subject is changed by it. How is giving money, for whatever reason, to a politician who's position you agree with corrupting that person or the system?
Pat
Calls to mind the politician in Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
You never knew what his position was until he knew which way the wind blew the votes. Update to today and add which way the wind blew the money.
A sad day for democrats, republicans and everyone else. 5-4 decision, we can hope.
I live in NC.
The state legislature was controlled by Dims for more than 100 years, despite the repeated election of extremely conservative Republican Senators.
Trust me, if the Legislature appointed Senators, we would have been more than 100 years without seeing a single Republican appointed Senator.
TR
But, since the people did elect conservative Senators that would seem to indicate that they wanted conservative Senators representing North Carolina. If the state legislature did not appoint them then perhaps the voters would take more interest in who they sent to the state legislature in the first place.
Then again:
Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina
Published April 03, 2014FoxNews.com
State elections officials in North Carolina are investigating hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud after identifying thousands of registered voters with personal information matching those of voters who voted in other states in 2012.
Elections Director Kim Strach told state lawmakers at an oversight hearing Wednesday that her staff has identified 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to have cast ballots in two states during the 2012 presidential election.
Strach said the first names, last names, birthdates and last four digits of their Social Security numbers appear to match information for voters in another state. Each case will now be investigated to determine whether voter fraud occurred.
"Could it be voter fraud? Sure, it could be voter fraud," Strach said. "Could it be an error on the part of a precinct person choosing the wrong person's name in the first place? It could be. We're looking at each of these individual cases."
WRAL.com reported that 81 residents who died before election day were recorded as casting a ballot. While about 30 of those voters appear to have legally cast ballots before election day, Strach said "there are between 40 and 50 [voters] who had died at a time that that's not possible."
"We have the 'Walking Dead,' and now we've got the 'Voting Dead,'" said state Sen. Bob Rucho, R-Mecklenburg. "I guess the reason there's no proof of voter fraud is because we weren't looking for it."
Strach cautioned, however, that in several past cases, instances of so-called zombie voters turned out to be the result of clerical errors.
"We're in the process of looking at each of these to see," Strach said. "That means either a poll or precinct worker made a mistake and marked the wrong person, or someone voted for them. That's something we can't determine until we look into each case."
A law passed last year by the Republican-dominated state legislature required elections staff to check information for North Carolina's more than 6.5 million voters against a database containing information for 101 million voters in 28 states.
The cross-check found listings for 35,570 North Carolina voters whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states. However, in those cases middle names and Social Security numbers were not matched.
The analysis also found 155,692 registered North Carolina voters whose information matched voters registered in other states but who most recently registered or voted elsewhere. Strach said those were most likely voters who moved out of state without notifying their local boards of elections.
Republicans leaders immediately touted the preliminary report as evidence they were justified in approving sweeping elections changes last year that include requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls, cutting days from the period for early voting and ending a popular civics program that encouraged high school students to pre-register to vote in advance of their 18th birthdays.
“That is outrageous. That is criminal. That is wrong, and it shouldn’t be allowed to go any further without substantial investigations from our local district attorneys who are the ones charged with enforcing these laws,” state Sen. Thom Goolsby, R-Wilmington, told the Charlotte Observer.
State House Speaker Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, and Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, issued a joint statement Wednesday on what they termed as the "alarming evidence."
"While we are alarmed to hear evidence of widespread voter error and fraud, we are encouraged to see the common-sense law passed to ensure voters are who they say they are is working," said the statement. "These findings should put to rest ill-informed claims that problems don't exist and help restore the integrity of our elections process."
However, other states using the cross-check system have yielded relatively few criminal prosecutions for voter fraud once the cases were thoroughly investigated.
Only 11 people were prosecuted on allegations of double-voting as a result of the 15 states that performed similar database checks following the 2010 elections, according to data compiled by elections officials in Kansas, where the cross-check program originated.
Bob Hall, director of the non-profit group Democracy North Carolina, cautioned officials not to jump to conclusions based on the preliminary database check.
"I know there is more than one Bob Hall with my birth date who lives among the 28 states researched," Hall said. "There may be cases of fraud, but the true scale and conspiracy involved need to be examined more closely before those with political agendas claim they've proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Voting rights advocate Bob Phillips of Common Cause NC told WRAL.com that while he is concerned about the report, it still doesn't justify requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls.
"I think a lot of [lawmakers] are saying, 'Aha, this proves what we did,'" Phillips said. "But if I have an ID, how is that going to stop me from voting in North Carolina if I've already voted in Florida?"
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/hundreds-cases-potential-voter-fraud-uncovered-in-north-carolina/
Money that corrupts the system doesn't have to go to just the politicians. ;)
Pat
The Reaper
04-04-2014, 11:03
But, since the people did elect conservative Senators that would seem to indicate that they wanted conservative Senators representing North Carolina. If the state legislature did not appoint them then perhaps the voters would take more interest in who they sent to the state legislature in the first place.
Then again:
Money that corrupts the system doesn't have to go to just the politicians. ;)
Pat
Pat:
Sorry, but letting politicians pick my politicians seems even more distasteful to me than directly electing them.
TR
Trapper John
04-04-2014, 11:29
I understand your position, also, as I used to share it. But, I've learned a bit more over the years. Money in campaigns of congressional elections (both chambers) should not be so important, but it is because of the direct election of senators and the overly large congressional districts.
If senators (following a repeal of the 17th Amendment) were appointed by the state's legislatures, there would be no need for them to fund raise to get elected. And, if the congressional districts were reduced to the original 20 to 30 thousand citizens money would not be as important or influential.
Also, simplifying the tax code would eliminate the tax incentive legislation that money can buy.
Pat
BINGO!!! :lifter
I see this ruling as further empowering the permanent and privileged political class. We the people (voters) are no longer important or at least have diminished importance in the electoral process. The candidates are pre-chosen from the political class and all we do is elect/choose among the pre-selected chosen few. Political party doesn't even matter, or it matters little.
So, other than the fact that we don't speak Chinese, tell me again how our system is any different than China's?
craigepo
04-08-2014, 07:31
BINGO!!! :lifter
I see this ruling as further empowering the permanent and privileged political class. We the people (voters) are no longer important or at least have diminished importance in the electoral process. The candidates are pre-chosen from the political class and all we do is elect/choose among the pre-selected chosen few. Political party doesn't even matter, or it matters little.
So, other than the fact that we don't speak Chinese, tell me again how our system is any different than China's?
The author to this article explains the liberty aspects of this decision much better than I can. Pretty interesting short take.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg040814.php3
Trapper John
04-08-2014, 10:55
The author to this article explains the liberty aspects of this decision much better than I can. Pretty interesting short take.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg040814.php3
Interesting indeed. Where the author and I agree that the objective is to return power to the people, we disagree as to the impact of the SCOTUS ruling. I see this as merely increasing the power and influence of well monied PACs and Super PACs on election outcomes and in particular the election of Senators and Presidents.
I think the election of Bill Clinton was a bell-weather and serves to make my point. For the first time in modern American presidential politics a presidential candidate with no other marketable skill other than the ability to get elected won the presidency. IMO his election validated "politician" as a career choice and was a clear demarcation in the emergence of a permanent political class (more celebrity than statesman).
My cynical view (I admit it) is that we (the people) only choose among the candidates with celebrity-like appeal that have been vetted by the Koch Brothers or George Soros (an oversimplification to make a point). That's a faux choice, IMO.
Because of the 17th A, this power also extends to the election of Senators and the erosion of the representation and power of the States. [I admit that was probably not the intention of the 17th, but it is a 2nd/3rd order effect nonetheless.]
The counterpoint to TR's comment: I have much more influence over my elected State representative than I do over George Soros or the Koch Brothers. Furthermore, the PACs and SuperPACs have less influence on the candidates for my State legislature than they do over candidates for Senate. With a 17th A in place they do not need to influence state and local level politics to achieve their goals either. They can just concentrate their efforts where they are - presidential and senatorial politics.
On the other hand, if there were no 17th A, I would predict that the Senate would be under Republican control simply because the Red states out number the Blue states.
I also think that this, if not the root cause, is a contributing factor to the divisiveness and sense of disenfranchisement that is so pervasive. We the people "feel" that we are out of control, we sense it, and the angst is palpable. Well, that is because we are!
So that is why I keep asking, what is the real difference between the one-party system of China and our "two-party" system. Do we have a real choice when we enter the voting booth?
Trapper John
04-08-2014, 18:42
Well, NEVERMIND! I just learned that PACs and SuperPACs are more involved in local politics than I ever realized. Don't particularly like it and don't particularly like the 17th A. But that's political reality - like it or not.
So if we are voting with our wallets, as a surrogate for 'free speech', the SCOTUS ruling is exactly correct, IMO. And I understand and agree with the opinion expressed in Craigpo's Jewish World Review post.
The thing that bothers me is that in the era of PACs/SuperPACs it just seems that this leads to a system where the votes of each citizen are no longer equal - George Soros's multiplies his vote multi-fold as compared to mine. I don't think that's what our Founders had in mind. JMO
ddoering
04-08-2014, 18:45
Well, NEVERMIND! I just learned that PACs and SuperPACs are more involved in local politics than I ever realized. Don't particularly like it and don't particularly like the 17th A. But that's political reality - like it or not.
So if we are voting with our wallets, as a surrogate for 'free speech', the SCOTUS ruling is exactly correct, IMO. And I understand and agree with the opinion expressed in Craigpo's Jewish World Review post.
The thing that bothers me is that in the era of PACs/SuperPACs it just seems that this leads to a system where the votes of each citizen are no longer equal - George Soros's multiplies his vote multi-fold as compared to mine. I don't think that what our Founders had in mind. JMO
I concur. If money equals free speech I would say his speech counts for more.
I just wish I could afford as much free speech as others can.
...maybe the POTUS s right and we DO need some social justice and income equality. If we all got paid the same we could all afford the same amount of free speech.
ddoering
04-09-2014, 04:05
Yeah but I would just waste it on cuss words....
The next step will be allowing political donations from other countries. The one judges justification was along the lines of, it's just the way the system works and if you don't like it fight for change. Might get what he is asking for.
Trapper John
04-09-2014, 05:28
The next step will be allowing political donations from other countries. The one judges justification was along the lines of, it's just the way the system works and if you don't like it fight for change. Might get what he is asking for.
I'm with you on that one Bro. :lifter
Snaquebite
04-09-2014, 07:44
From another forum:
Gun Owners of America states that all gun owners won a huge victory before the US Supreme Court last week. The McCutcheon decision was a victory bc SCOTUS struck down Congress' contribution limits a person can give to a candidate.
This means that gun owners can support pro-2nd amendment candidates without limitation financially.
As Justice John Roberts on page 3 of the McCutcheon decision stated which came from the GOA amicus brief. "And those who govern should be the last people to help decide who should govern".
In addition, Idaho became the latest state to nullify Obama's gun control agenda. The new law as passed by 12 other states as well, bars Idaho officials from enforcing federal gun control laws and the law will penalize officers who give such orders. Alaska and Kansas passed their own nullification bills last year.
Anti-gun former Mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg has come up empty in New Hampshire as well. He is spending millions of his own money all over the country to try and get states to expand background checks t prevent more and more law abiding citizens from owning guns.
In New Hampshire, Senate Bill 244 was introduced with this end in mind by an anti-gun democrat. This ban could have banned police and firemen with PTS or seniors with Alzheimers from owning guns, many of whom have large and valuable gun collections they would like to pass onto their children.
GOA worked with the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition to get the onerous provisions stripped out of the bill. After a long hard battle, the New Hampshire State Senate stripped out those provisions and every word about gun control.
Finally, the 80 year old man (Otis McDonald) who brought down Chicago's gun control ban in the US S. Court case of McDonald vs. Chicago in 2010 died April 4, 2014 after a long illness. He was a gracious Christian gentleman who loved his family and wanted nothing more than to keep them safe.
So, if one reviews the history of American politics and political spending, have things really changed as much as we'd like to believe over the last two centuries, or are they continuing along pretty much as they always have in regards to the purchasing of access and the forming of public opinion?
Richard