• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS strikes down maximum contribution limits

Billy Mitchell

Billy Mitchell

The King of Kong
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
178
Location
Fun Spot, USA
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/high-court-voids-overall-contribution-limits

The Supreme Court struck down limits Wednesday in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.

The justices said in a 5-4 vote that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.

But their decision does not undermine limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 an election.
Click to expand...

Republican activist Shaun McCutcheon of Hoover, Ala., the national Republican party and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky challenged the overall limits on what contributors may give in a two-year federal election cycle. The total is $123,200, including a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates, for 2013 and 2014.

Limits on individual contributions, currently $2,600 per election to candidates for Congress, are not at issue.

Relaxed campaign finance rules have reduced the influence of political parties, McConnell and the GOP argued.

McCutcheon gave the symbolically significant $1,776 to 15 candidates for Congress and wanted to give the same amount to 12 others. But doing so would have put him in violation of the cap.
Click to expand...
 
We need a country with poor, brown-skinned people to bomb the shit out of us and force democracy down our throats now.
 
If spending money = speech, why are laws against buying weed constitutional?
 
538 article on effect of ruling:http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/a-few-data-points-on-the-supreme-courts-donor-limit-decision/

The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down biennial aggregate campaign contribution limits. For 2014, the overall limit was $123,200. There was a lower limit of $74,600 for donations to PACs and party committees (of which no more than $48,600 could be given to a nonnational party committee). And donors could give, at most, $48,600 to all candidates. At this point, the court hasn’t touched the limits to individual candidates. So, what’s the impact of this decision? Here are a few data points.

First, the parties will become more powerful. Over the past few elections, most people looking to get around donation limits gave tons of money to Super PACs. Now contributors can ingratiate themselves with a party by giving directly. Along the same lines, major bundlers (e.g. those who have a habit of getting ambassadorships) will gain more pull.

Second, very few donors hit the limits set out by the Federal Election Committee (FEC) in 2012. Per Open Secrets, only 2,972 donors maxed out to committees, and only 591 maxed out to candidates. Maxed-out donors leaned about 3 to 2 toward giving to Republican candidates. Only 646 donors hit the limit on both committees and candidates. These numbers, however, probably slightly underestimate the GOP advantage going forward, because top Super PAC donations leaned 2 to 1 toward Republicans in 2012, according to the Sunlight Foundation.

Finally, transparency may very well increase (at least a little). Who donates to Super PACs and how they do it has been fairly opaque. Donations to PACs, party committees and candidates are subject to more stringent FEC disclosure rules.
Click to expand...
 
Based on the 538 piece, this seems like a positive, at least in terms of transparency.
 
It's pretty fucked up that the combined limit on contributing to polictical campaigns is significantly higher than the combined limit on contrirbuting to your own qualified retirement plans.
 
This makes no sense. Either money is speech and can't be regulated or it's not. If you can't limit the number of campaigns and committees one can give to, then you can't limit the amount anyone can give to any single campaign.

You can't have it both ways. Either money is speech and can't be regulated or it's not. This is utter hypocrisy.

EDIT: Effectively this ruling says you can regulate the amount someone is allowed to give as they let the specific limit stand as an inane excuse. Thus any amount would be legal.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
This makes no sense. Either money is speech and can't be regulated or it's not. If you can't limit the number of campaigns and committees one can give to, then you can't limit the amount anyone can give to any single campaign.

You can't have it both ways. Either money is speech and can't be regulated or it's not. This is utter hypocrisy.

EDIT: Effectively this ruling says you can regulate the amount someone is allowed to give as they let the specific limit stand as an inane excuse. Thus any amount would be legal.
Click to expand...

Thomas went there, meaning he wanted to get rid of all limitations. My understanding is that the other four in the plurality didn't address it because it was not brought up by McCutcheon. It seems like it's only a matter of time before that, too, is challenged. Then we'll have to see if they stick to their guns, or if Alito, Roberts, Scalia, or Kennedy find a way to dance around it.
 
two top stories on Reason.com yesterday/today:
1. Supreme Court Strikes Down Major Campaign Finance Restriction
2. Americans Say 75% of Politicians are Corrupted, 70 Percent Use Political Power to Hurt Enemies

Anyone who wants to know what corruption in politics looks like - real, big time corruption, not penny-ante shit like Cannon's graft in Charlotte - read this. Do we really want our future presidents to be bought and sold like this?
 
DeacinBama said:
Thomas went there, meaning he wanted to get rid of all limitations. My understanding is that the other four in the plurality didn't address it because it was not brought up by McCutcheon. It seems like it's only a matter of time before that, too, is challenged. Then we'll have to see if they stick to their guns, or if Alito, Roberts, Scalia, or Kennedy find a way to dance around it.
Click to expand...

The retirement of Scalia and Kennedy can't happen quickly enough. With Hillary in the WH and them replaced, Roberts will become a de facto lame duck Chief Justice. Hillary will look for cases to overturn CU, VRA, the striking down of states not participating in ACA and this decision.
 
Deacon923 said:
two top stories on Reason.com yesterday/today:
1. Supreme Court Strikes Down Major Campaign Finance Restriction
2. Americans Say 75% of Politicians are Corrupted, 70 Percent Use Political Power to Hurt Enemies

Anyone who wants to know what corruption in politics looks like - real, big time corruption, not penny-ante shit like Cannon's graft in Charlotte - read this. Do we really want our future presidents to be bought and sold like this?
Click to expand...

What this decision did is make bundlers the most people in politics.
 
Instead of elections, why not just have political auctions for the seats.
 
Federal funding of elections would eliminate all the problems from both sides of the argument...such a simple solution yet not supported by hardly anyone in power. Wonder why....
 
HowardDeanSux said:
Federal funding of elections would eliminate all the problems from both sides of the argument...such a simple solution yet not supported by hardly anyone in power. Wonder why....
Click to expand...

We agree 1000% on this. It didn't stop Reagan from getting his message out to beat an incumbent POTUS and then defend his position.

If you don't think Shelly Adelson, the Koch brothers and others are exacting a price for their money, you are hopelessly naive.

I'm not pointing this at you HDS. We are completely in agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top