The Supreme Court STRUCK DOWN on Thursday part of a U.S. campaign finance law that RELAXES contribution limits for candidates facing wealthy, self-funded opponents .... article
I'm not sure I get your point.
If I am running against you and I have a personal fortune of $800 million, the law would have RELAXED the campaign contribution limits of your supporters who want you elected instead of me.
That law was struck down.
How does imposing stricter contribution limits on YOUR supporters constitute "political free speech"?
All I see is that I can spend $100 million to get you defeated, (which I was allowed to do anyway before the Supreme Court ruling) but you, on the other hand, are not legally allowed to raise $100 million even if your supporters were willing to raise $300 million for you.
Is it the Supreme Court's job to make elections "fair"? Why shouldn't the "millionaire" have the benefit of the advantage his money confers upon him? Why should the candidate facing a "millionaire" be allowed a greater level of contributions than a candidate facing a more modestly endowed opponent?
This particular exception -- designed to micro-manage the "fairness of it all" -- is just one more reason why the whole of McCain-Feingold should be ashcanned.
McCain-Feingold eschews the principle that money represents political free speech. Congress tried to intervene on how much an individual can contribute of his own funds to his own campaign by triggering the ability of his opponent to raise more money. That law was struck down, which is a good thing.
All of McCain-Feingold should be struck down. Such Rube Goldberg solutions like this law, which tried to remedy a loophole in the law that allowed individuals to contribute as much as they want to their own campaign, deserve to be voided. Perhaps, some will see the light as to how flawed this legislation is.
It is worth noting that, "The court's majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, struck down the campaign contribution limits on candidates competing for the same congressional seat and the disclosure requirements under the provision at issue. In the first four years the law has been in effect, more than 100 House and Senate candidates faced opponents who spent enough of their personal wealth to trigger the provision."
One of the most prominent beneficiaries of the law so far has been Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in his 2004 Democratic senatorial primary campaign in Illinois. Obama was able to accept additional contributions because his opponent spent nearly $29 million of his own money.
Alito agreed with the arguments by Davis that the law violated the constitutional free-speech rights of self-financed candidates, impermissibly burdening Davis' rights to spend his own money for campaign speech.
The court's liberals -- Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- dissented and said they would have upheld the law.