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

Skip to comments.

Cruz: Abolish limits on political cash
The Hill ^ | 06/03/14 12:50 PM EDT | Benjamin Goad

Posted on 06/04/2014 6:41:42 AM PDT by SoConPubbie

Sen. Ted Cruz introduced legislation Tuesday that would deny Congress the power to regulate political spending.

A pair of bills penned by the Texas Republican would eliminate caps on direct contributions from individuals to candidates and set forth that all laws related to political speech apply equally to ordinary citizens and media corporations.

The bills’ introduction came as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered competing testimony on Capitol Hill regarding a Democratic plan to empower Congress to regulate political fundraising.

The Democratic proposal, offered in response high-profile Supreme Court rulings relaxing campaign finance regulations, would require a constitutional amendment. Though the effort stands little chance of success, Cruz and other Republicans have seized on the initiative as an attack on the First Amendment.

“Senate Democrats are seeking unfettered power to regulate and stifle political speech, which is why today, it’s more important than ever to champion the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution,” Cruz said in a written statement. “Once Congress can prohibit spending money, it can prohibit almost every form of speech, whether it comes to books, films, television advertisements, or events.”

Cruz’s SuperPAC Elimination Act of 2014 would eliminate the caps on direct contributions to candidates from individuals and would also require all donations over $200 to be disclosed within 24 hours.

The second bill, dubbed the Free All Speech Act, would require that all restrictions on political speech that apply to individuals also apply to media corporations. At the same time, the bill would ensure that if legislation is found to be unconstitutional as applied to the media, it may not be forced on individuals.

The latter legislation is meant to put average people on an “even playing field” with the media when it comes to free speech, Cruz said.

The high court’s controversial decisions in Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC served to loosen restrictions on campaign spending for corporations and scrapped longtime overall limits on the amount of money individual donors can spend in a single election cycle.

Critics, largely from the liberal end of the political spectrum, have decried the rulings as allowing new torrents of money into a federal election system already skewed in favor of donors with deep pockets.

Democrats have pledged to bring to the Senate floor the amendment authorizing Congress to impose regulations by year’s end.

Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

Conservatives argue that restrictions sought by their political adversaries amount to a violation of free speech rights.

“Money is and always has been used as a critical tool of speech,” Cruz said earlier this year.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cruz; tedcruz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

 

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan

 

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792

 

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

 

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

 


1 posted on 06/04/2014 6:41:42 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; crazycatlady; killermosquito; tpmintx; TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig; Caipirabob; Clump; ...
Ted Cruz Ping!

If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.

Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
2 posted on 06/04/2014 6:42:04 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

The DemocRATS already have abolished limits for their candidates. The Republicans need to do the same thing.


3 posted on 06/04/2014 6:43:11 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

This guy flat out rules. He gets every dime I can give him if he runs.


4 posted on 06/04/2014 6:45:52 AM PDT by Reagan Disciple (Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

The important thing is that our politicians aren’t for sale.


5 posted on 06/04/2014 6:48:33 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Cruz is absolutely right. Contributing money is a form of free speech. That’s why liberal;s want to limit it.


6 posted on 06/04/2014 6:48:58 AM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
No matter what laws are passed.....money will get to where it wants to be.

Go after term limits instead. This was supposed to be a duty not a career.

7 posted on 06/04/2014 6:49:36 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP

Also Liberals know they have ways around it, See Hillary’s book deals.


8 posted on 06/04/2014 6:50:22 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I like a fair amount of what Cruz says but some I really dislike. This is one. This is the sale of our Democracy pure and simple. It’s Government to the highest bidder.

And a corporation should never, ever have the rights of an individual. It is a corporation. It is a collection of people who have rights.

This is dead wrong.


9 posted on 06/04/2014 6:50:35 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

As long as we can get FULL disclosure on amounts contributed from who to whom, at the time of the donation, I think its a good idea. Candidates can run ads blasting opponents about who is donating to whom (and amounts) will be a great equalizer.


10 posted on 06/04/2014 7:01:06 AM PDT by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

We need some more serious reforms than that...


11 posted on 06/04/2014 7:20:26 AM PDT by varmintman (It must really suck to be a Nazi in Kiev these days...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
That is a conversation that hasn't been played out. As it is now, corporations, groups, unions, and other associations have more 'speech' than the individual in the form of donations. That is wrong.

Secondly, in the days of multinationals, why would a foreign corporation have any say in the running of our Gov't. Just as any country can refuse to listen to ours.

12 posted on 06/04/2014 7:28:26 AM PDT by Theoria (End Socialism : No more GOP and Dem candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
I like a fair amount of what Cruz says but some I really dislike. This is one. This is the sale of our Democracy pure and simple. It’s Government to the highest bidder.

Which part do you dislike about this legislation?

Freeing individuals, citizens, to contribute as they see fit?

Or just the bit about corporations?

Or both?

If you don't like the freeing the individual to contribute as they see fit, where do you think the limits should be placed?

Are you a limited government conservative?
13 posted on 06/04/2014 7:40:18 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
We need some more serious reforms than that...

Really?

Like what?

Please enumerate them.
14 posted on 06/04/2014 7:40:59 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2001convSVT
As long as we can get FULL disclosure on amounts contributed from who to whom, at the time of the donation, I think its a good idea. Candidates can run ads blasting opponents about who is donating to whom (and amounts) will be a great equalizer.

I agree. Full disclosure within 24 hours of ALL contributions. Even the small ones.
15 posted on 06/04/2014 7:41:43 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
For starters...
16 posted on 06/04/2014 7:45:27 AM PDT by varmintman (It must really suck to be a Nazi in Kiev these days...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Some of those are good, some not.

Baby steps my friend.

Sometimes it is necessary to do one thing at a time.

The left are masters at it.

On this issue, we need to learn from them.
17 posted on 06/04/2014 7:48:36 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

I don’t see us having time for baby steps starting from now...


18 posted on 06/04/2014 7:58:39 AM PDT by varmintman (It must really suck to be a Nazi in Kiev these days...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

I’m with you on this. Only American citizens should be spending on American politics.


19 posted on 06/04/2014 8:43:42 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

If people in this country took their vote seriously, no amount of money would affect an election. If you know the candidates’ positions, if you have put at least a little bit of study into the issues, and if you vote with conviction, no one can buy your vote.

The problem is the low-information voters, and that’s the reason the left is so worried about this. The left has most of the press spewing propaganda for them. What is the monetary value of that? There are no limits on spending for the networks to bring the Democratic message each night - and rightly so. That’s the First Amendment.

It should also apply to citizens and corporations. That’s why this is important.


20 posted on 06/04/2014 9:44:25 AM PDT by itzmygun (Elitism + hatred of mankind = LIBERALISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next 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