Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justices Seem Poised to Break Campaign Spending Barrier
New York Law Journal ^ | October 9, 2013 | By Marcia Coyle

Posted on 10/08/2013 7:37:02 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines

In arguments in McCutcheon and Republican National Committee v. Federal Election Commission (See Transcript), the deep divide on the court over First Amendment speech protection and campaign finance limits—last reflected in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)—surfaced again. This time, the constitutional attack was on federal limits on the total amount of money an individual may contribute to candidates and political groups in a two-year election cycle.

With competing hypotheticals, the Roberts Court's conservatives challenged the government's argument that the so-called aggregate contribution limits were still needed to combat public corruption, while the moderate-liberal wing sought to bolster the argument.

The case has attracted the usual outpouring of amicus briefs by conservative, libertarian and Republican-leaning groups challenging the limits, and liberal, union, reform and Democratic-leaning organizations defending them…

In the end, the outcome of McCutcheon may depend on Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who asked lawyers on both sides for a narrow way to resolve what he said was a serious restriction on the speech of those who want to contribute to many candidates in an election but who are hobbled by the money limit.

A consequence of the aggregate limits, Roberts said, is "telling someone who wants to contribute to more than nine candidates, he can't contribute to the tenth. It seems a very direct restriction on much smaller contributions that Congress said do not present a problem with corruption."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections

1 posted on 10/08/2013 7:37:02 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

It’s called uncostitutional, dear Johnny boy. The whole campaign contribution lSupreme Court jurisprudence is made up, unconstitutional drivel. Congress shall make no law . . . Get it you elitist fraud?

2 posted on 10/08/2013 7:43:10 PM PDT by LALALAW (one of the asses who's sick of our "ruling" classes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
It's about time that SCOTUS repudiate the whole "corruption" canard. It took a big step in Citizens United. Now it should complete the job.
3 posted on 10/08/2013 7:51:39 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

The psychology of liberals is very interesting. They don’t trust free association or the institutions that grow up around it. Things like churches, religions, organizations (Scouts, Foreign Legion, John Birch Society, Lions, Elks, bowling leagues, sports teams, and etc.), and businesses in their various forms.

Yet, their solution is based on an institution, not freely associated, but forced which is run by enlightened third parties which: 1. care more about you than you do and 2. know more about you and reality than God.

How on earth can liberals be logical? Doesn’t their entire premise of belief point to insanity?

4 posted on 10/08/2013 7:55:45 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


removing the limits will help Democrat big wigs like Peter Lewis and George Soros the most.

5 posted on 10/08/2013 8:03:02 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

You think those guys are obeying those laws or that the Obama Administration would ever enforce those laws against them?

6 posted on 10/08/2013 8:21:11 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

You think those guys are obeying those laws...”

We’ll never ever know how much they contribute or to whom as long as it is a Democrat candidate. Doesn’t matter how many laws they pass.

7 posted on 10/08/2013 8:53:15 PM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Large corporations don't really care about whether something is Constitutional. If something they want to do is currently unconstitutional then they will lobby congress until it is.

We can be purists and oppose all limitations on campaign contributions, but we can only do so in the absolute certain knowledge that millions more dollars will be spent each year to undermine our way of life.

We're basically screwed if we "win" and screwed if we "lose" on this decision. I can see people having an opinion one way or the other on this issue, but making this a litmus test for true believers seems somewhat self-destructive.

8 posted on 10/08/2013 9:03:45 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Campaign contributions should be limited to individuals(or groups of individuals). The whole idea that corporations or unions should be allowed to contribute is not what the founders intended.

9 posted on 10/08/2013 9:29:08 PM PDT by ScobbyDoobyDoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

It’s called uncostitutional, dear Johnny boy.

.No kidding. this is what you get with Ivy League brainiacs who have long since lost their moorings in the real world.

10 posted on 10/08/2013 9:46:03 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScobbyDoobyDoo

I believe the founders would disagree with you.

11 posted on 10/09/2013 3:35:04 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Liberal: A person who charges their grandchildren for today's party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ScobbyDoobyDoo

IMHO, I’m with you. If one cannot pull a lever to vote, they should not be able to contribute (that goes for groups, PACs, etc.)

12 posted on 10/09/2013 7:38:14 AM PDT by i_robot73 (Give me one example and I will show where gov't is the root of the problem(s).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines

Don’t always agree with George Will, but he hit the nail square on the head on campaign finance law:

1. No limits.
2. No foreign money.
3. Full disclosure.

13 posted on 10/09/2013 7:39:44 AM PDT by kevkrom (It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

>How on earth can liberals be logical? Doesn’t their entire
>premise of belief point to insanity?


You are killing me, because I have been explaining this everywhere, but people are still saying things like this. The Liberal is not illogical. They are programmed with a rabbit-like, r-selected reproductive strategy, which is actually the best way for a biological organism to reproduce when resources are not limited. Avoid conflict in any way possible, mate promiscuously, single parent, sexualize offspring early, and have no loyalty to in-group - it is just like the rabbit, for a distinct reason, which has long been known in Evolutionary Ecology. This is a distinct reproductive strategy which Evolutionary Ecology has identified for several decades now in the animal kingdom. The whole abhorrance of free association is an instinctual attempt to eradicate a selective mechanism which favors the K-selected, group-oriented, competitive psychology. It is all about forcefully banning the competitive environment, which is the one environment in nature which culls r-strategists, and forcing everyone to be a good little rabbit.

On October 17th, the text describing the research behind this (which explains not just how the Liberal thinks, but why they think that way), will be free at Amazon in Kindle form. Download one of the free programs Amazon has to display Kindles on a computer or tablet, download the book for free, and it will explain exactly what Liberals are, and why they think the way they do, complete with hundreds of hyperlinked endnotes to the studies which support it.

If you want, stop by , enter your email address, and the site will even send you a free reminder and a link a day or so before the free day, so you don’t forget to pull it down. Forget to pull it down, and just stay on the email list, and we will email you again the next time it is free. There is no advertising or newsletter, and we don’t share your email. We pay for all of this out of pocket, and the only thing we ask for in return, is that if the book leaves you awed, you tell others about it, and get them to download it for free too.

This work horrifies Liberals. Explain it to one, and you will be astonished at how they recoil. Explain it to them, and they begin to freak out, almost instinctually. The sooner everybody stops wondering why Liberals are so stupid and illogical, and begins explaining to everyone why it is so logical that Liberals are so stupid, is the day our political battles will become much easier.

14 posted on 10/09/2013 9:45:11 AM PDT by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson