Breaking: Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits

Twitter ^ | 04-02-2014 | SCOTUSblog

[PaulCruz2016]

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

[SoFloFreeper]

Washington Times reports that Democrats are "enraged"!!!

[SoFloFreeper]

"But...but...I said it was 'settled law', and that the debate was over...."

[American Constitutionalist]

"But...but...I said it was 'settled law', and that the debate was over...." ...

To bad Obie, the Supreme Court over ruled you.

[American Constitutionalist]

GOOD THEN ! LETS GET TEA PARTY CANDIDATES AND WIN THE ELECTION AND TAKE BACK CONGRESS !

[Repeal 16-17]

Is this a good thing?

Campaign finance regulations are incompatible with free speech. Money is not speech, but money is an essential element in being able to express yourself to a very large group of people. So, yes, this decision is a good thing.

[newnhdad]

I agree with this, it is a two way street. The left has more people willing to give unlimited amounts of money to their cause and it will be reflected in the 2014s. This is their religion.

[RedStateRocker]

The thing that is ironic – for the left- is that IIRC defining “speech” as anything besides spoken or written WORDS was originally an argument of the progressives; that “art” or “protest” or burning a flag could be speech.
I don’t like or agree with the underlying idea of this ruling, to me “speech” is written or spoken words (in English), not money, not a crucifix in urine, not burning a flag or performance art, WORDS. But OTOH, if it annoys the lefties enough or gets good candidates elected…..

[Repeal 16-17]

now if Ginsberg will simply hang on until January 20, 2016 2017, then promptly keel over, we can get Cruz, Palin, or Paul to appoint her replacement and can really start taking back our country!

Fixed.

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, he is a self-righteous ‘do-gooder’ that has no concept of freedom.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Good points (#56, #59). Thanks. I count this SCOTUS decision as positive if only because it drives liberals batty.

[BruceS]

I think you are correct that every dime must be publicly listed, but I would say it should be daily on the website. In the computer age, quarterly information is too late.

As far as letting us take this nation back, the left has at least as much money as the right does - and they don't give any to charities. But even if it puts Consertvatives at a disadvantage, let's seek who gives money to back whom.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[Spartan79]

It pretty much is bribery - but it seems most people miss the real problem. As long as the government is going to legislate in all areas of life, people and organizations are going to have incentive to try and influence that legislation, through a variety of means (including contributions/bribes). If the government were to fit within their constitutionally prescribed role, this problem would be highly reduced - the incentive to contribute would no longer exist.

Very true. The founders thought that the powers granted to the federal government they created were so effectively circumscribed by the Constitution that it wouldn't't really matter very much who won federal elections.

[ObamahatesPACoal]

A Black Democrat for instance may donate to Obama and every member of the Congressional Black Caucus. It helps the little guy.

Democrats should agree with this ruling. If the Koch Brothers gave 2600 to every Republican Congressman that is not going to help them that much.

[TurboZamboni]

AMEN!

[entropy12]

This is a great decision. It helps fight the biggest campaign contributors of all...the labor unions.

[Kansas58]

Grow up. Campaigns cost money. Those of us who really care contribute to the candidates who we support. It is a violation of my rights to limit how much I can send to any candidate.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The acerbity of your response is unwarranted. The wisdom of spending your substance in the interest of wielding political power is not above question.

[apoliticalone]

“Somehow I don’t associate campaign contributions with “free speech,” or at least I do not equate the two. I would not donate to any candidate without expectation of a favor in return, namely that he/she acts and votes for legislation in accord with my personal convictions. The vote is the ultimate “campaign contribution.” Do we need to pay them to uphold and defend the Constitution? Let the candidates speak all they want to at no charge. I do not see much integrity inherent in receiving huge sums of ideological money. It reeks of bribery, not free speech.”

Fester I agree with you on this. I don’t see how putting more money into the political system that mostly goes to a handful of big media companies benefits our liberty or Constitution. Money in politics has always been a pathway to corruption. When a handful of people can control our legislators with their pocket change, I don’t see how that benefits most of us.

Unlimited money going to keep entrenched politicians in power benefits the status quo not liberty and freedom, for most. I will make a wager (hoping that I’m wrong) that someday, the oligarchs will conclude that allowing an armed public in America doesn’t benefit them, and this now gives a handful of people more ability to purchase gun control, open borders, or any other policy change. Many have already stated this.

Free speech should equal one vote and all the physical effort you wish to donate towards your candidate, is my view of how free speech should work. Keep big money out of our politics and elections. Big money going to politics equals crooked government like bailouts to Wall St and money to Solyndra, etc.

[Kansas58]

Practice what you preach. You are calling those you disagree with “corrupt” in their contributions or in their acceptance of contributions.
I am calling you NAIVE.