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 ...
YES, this is a great ruling! The First Amendment means what it says!!
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this insures that all of our bad choices of political candidates are those who are supported by the Elite....Who are all flaming socialists and liberals.
You sound like a Liberal. How about the taxpayer money used to buy votes with welfare programs? How about the money it takes for the Liberal Media to endorse and support Liberal Democrat candidates and liberal policy? Free Speech costs money. Money is speech. Speech is money. PERIOD!
Money is speech, speech is money. Show me how it would be legal to limit the endorsements of the liberal media? And since we can’t do that, how do we fight the Liberal Media?
This is an EXCELLENT ruling and those who oppose it are the very definition of LIBERAL!
There's two prongs to this law imo. The first prong is that although the feds do have limited constitutional authority to make laws regulating elections, the Constitution's Clause 1 of Section 4 of Article I for example, I don't see where federal laws that limit campaign contributions are reasonably based on those powers. Can anybody enlighten me?
The other prong is that many campaign contributions are undoubtedly based on the perceived powers of the federal government as opposed to the constitutionally limited powers. More specifically, corrupt politicians are laughing all the way to the bank because they are likely promising constitutionally indefensible earmark spending to the low-information elite, wealthy contributors who were never taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.
In other words, unless a candidate for federal office is basing a promised earmark kickback on one of the clauses in Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, wealthy contributors are unknowingly contributing to the constitutionally indefensible abuse of Congress's limited powers.
“Soros just opened his checkbook.”
Doesn’t matter. The only people falling for the “Koch brothers are evil” commercials are rabid liberals.
Then... the government has no case against Dinesh D’Souza.
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.
This’ll drive the progressives nuts.
“Soros just opened his checkbook.”
Jack Kemp thought making common cause with Louis Farrakhan was the future for the GOP. Not the sharpest tool in the box. He’s also dead.
I support free speech.
and if someone has a louder voice than me, or more money to pay to transmit their message, God bless them, and may the best ideas win.
I think this is going to make lots of supposed “cases” against conservatives collapse. They are, after all, the only ones against whom the now overturned limits are ever enforced.
If this is declared unconstitutional at the federal level, it would be unconstitutional at the level of state laws too, so that means a lot of states that had local regulations that limited (conservative) speech and fundraising are going to have to drop them.
The Democrats must be greatly saddened. Especially the staff of lawyers they had hired to comb through the records of the local GOP organizations and every single one of their donors, just looking for even the tiniest “violation.” It had a very paralyzing and intimidating effect on GOP donors, as it was meant to do. Toughski, Dems.
If I read this correctly this is a case about an individual who wanted to contribute more than the aggregate amount allowed by law.
Thus this ruling doesn’t affect unions or corporations. Only individuals.
It also doesn’t affect the individual limit to one candidate.
It only disbars the currently set aggregate limit imposed on individuals for an entire campaign cycle.
For example if Joe Blow wanted to contribute $2,500 each to 12 different candidates he was fine but if he wanted to contribute $2,500 to more than 12 candidates then he was breaking the law.
As far as I understand this ruling now permits individuals to contribute $2,500 to as many candidates as they wish.
The “charge” for speech comes from the media that the politicians need to hire to make their speech heard. We’ve had a lot of good contenders who really were simply never able to afford enough publicity. And one of the reasons is that people were afraid to donate to them for fear of exceeding these “limits.”
Well, let’s say GOP donors were afraid. The Dems were never worried, since most of their donations come under the table or through various backchannels anyway and are never accounted for. That still won’t change, but at least now there’s a possibility for more money to flow into GOP or conservative campaigns.
sweet!
now if Ginsberg will simply hang on until January 2016 then promptly keel over, we can get Cruz, Palin, or Paul to appoint her replacement and can really start taking back our country!
I Will go EVEN further-
UNION THUG MONEY goes to Demonrats -
AND IT IS UNLIMITED!!!!
And they take dues from Christians and others to
FINANCE the WAR of TERROR on America!!
Yep -Clarence Thomas is right this does not go FAR enough!
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.
Everyone of these entities can spend as much as they want supporting (you know it!) democrats and leftist causes across the world and America's fruited plain. They throw wads of cash from collected union dues from the rank and file and contributions from school kids and little old ladies who only want to save the whales into the pockets of greedy democrat politicians! Why should business people be muzzled and these leftists get carte blanche to pay for and spread as much lies as they want?
Where, oh where, outraged so-called reform groups, is the FAIRNESS in THAT?
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.