Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/30/2026 11:28:31 AM PDT by DFG
The Supreme Court on Tuesday erased limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president, striking down a federal election law that is more than 50 years old.
Prodded by a Republican-led lawsuit that includes Vice President JD Vance, the court’s six conservative justices were again in the majority of the latest decision that upended congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.
The limits on party spending stem from a desire to prevent large donors from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party, with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate.
The Supreme Court had previously upheld the limits, in 2001.
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, said that decision was wrong and should be overruled. “In short, constitutional text, history and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent for the three liberal justices said the court “ushers in untold harm” by enabling parties to funnel large contributions to individual candidates, far in excess of what donors can give those candidates directly.
National parties now will be able to make direct contributions to candidates’ campaigns,
The decision is likely to give Republicans at least a short-term boost because they maintain a sizable cash advantage over Democrats.
The Republican National Committee and its Senate and House campaign fundraising arms have dwarfed Democrats’ in the months before congressional elections where the GOP is defending narrow majorities in both houses.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
My gut instinct is that this case will embolden and empower the GOP Establishment to the detriment of constitutional limited government conservatives.
The Establishment has it thick with all of the corporate donors. We really aren’t well prepared to battle this.
RE: ...erased limits on how much political parties can spend
Sammy Davis, Jr.: “I have always been in favor of the two party system. Go to the party at Dean’s place or the one at Frank’s.”
As long as very rich people can spend untold amounts of their own money to buy an office, it seems bizarre that they can’t spend untold amounts of money to support someone else they believe in or think would be more competent.
Show up and vote against incumbents. Kick them out, even the seemingly good ones, until they do what they promise. There has to be a point where they are held accountable, or they will continue to work against the interests of the republic and for the interests of the uniparty and special interests.
Show up and vote against incumbents in primaries.
"six conservative justices"
An executive order was never going to fix birthright citizenship. This is awful...all big money - all the time.
You need a new gut.
L
Long overdue. The limits on party spending helped drive the enormous growth of dark money. If billionnaires can channel huge sums into campaign surrogate groups, the parties should be able to shed the limits. At least contributions to the parties will be reportable, not flying around under the table.
Leave aside whether or not you are mad at the RNC at the moment. That ain’t the point. Since 2016, the RNC Chairman has been Trump’s pick. From the moment the new GOP presidential nominee clinches the nomination in the summer of 2028, the new team will take over, even if the chairmanship doesn’t officially change until after the next regular meeting of the full RNC.
Going back to the original way the
Senators were elected by our state houses,
I would like our state houses to recommend
who they want us to vote for Senator.
Make them choose one person and recommend
that person be elected.
It is strictly information.
I can dream. Lol.
Repeal the 17th.
Many don’t realize that this is a free speech issue. That large sums of money are used to advance the candidate who agrees with the donor’s views does not mean the government is justified in passing laws that result in curtailing those views. The government can’t tell a donor “You can express your support for this candidate up until you spend this amount.”
This will probably benefit democrats more than republicans. Harris outspent Trump by 100% in 2024 by spending over $2 billion, including going about $20 million into the red in 2024. George Soros just announced his intention to spend $103 million in the midterms to support the far left dems.
So if incumbent left wing republicans only need to get past the primary, they have a unlimited balance American Express Platinum to be as anti-constitutional as they want to be?
Is that your position?
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.