Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits
Twitter ^ | 04-02-2014 | SCOTUSblog

Posted on 04/02/2014 7:17:50 AM PDT by PaulCruz2016

Breaking: scotus strikes down aggregate campaign contribution limits 5-4 per Chief Justice Roberts in McCutcheon case.

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: campaign; campaigndonors; contributions; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 last
To: PaulCruz2016

I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, I think this will benefit the party, on the other hand it’s going to be a boon to cronyism in Washington. I think Citizen’s United got it right, there shouldn’t be limits on a private individual’s ability to spend on political advocacy, but I never really had a major problem with limitations on direct contributions. We’re already being sold out to corporate interests on most major issues. I’m not sure that allowing the chamber of commerce and government contractors to open their wallets even wider is going to benefit the conservative movement in the long run. We can barely get the Republican party to pay attention to us as it is. There’s a reason why Mitch McConnell was the biggest national supporter of McCutcheon. This could turn money away from the various PACs like Club for Growth and FreedomWorks back towards the established leadership of both parties.


81 posted on 04/03/2014 10:15:39 AM PDT by Blackyce (French President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I merely raised the question. I was not calling names.


82 posted on 04/03/2014 10:17:22 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

The 2000 dollar limit to any one candidate still applies. The aggregate limit of 46,000 no longer applies.

One can give 2000 dollars to as many individual candiates as one wants. There is no limit there.

The Dems are furious because the Unions now have competition.


83 posted on 04/04/2014 1:26:46 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Absolutely. It was unfair to try to limit the influence of the richest people in the country. Now they will be able to exert greater influence on our elected leaders, which is good, because they are interested in accomplishing many of the same goals as we are, such as reducing the tax rates on rich people, which, as we know, will be good for the country.


84 posted on 04/04/2014 3:46:23 AM PDT by paristexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

The best ideas hardly ever win.


85 posted on 04/04/2014 5:11:37 PM PDT by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: utford

While true enough, who could be elected to “reduce” the size of government? The money is always going to be on the big government side.


86 posted on 04/04/2014 5:14:25 PM PDT by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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