• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Supreme Court strikes cap on aggregate political contributions

Cylinder

Philosopher
Cylinder
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,062
Location
Arkansas
Justices strike down political donor limits

In another blow to federal election laws, the Supreme Court on Wednesday eliminated limits on the total amount people can donate to various political campaigns in a single election season. However, the court left intact the current $5,200 limit on how much an individual can give to any single candidate.

At issue is whether those regulations in the Federal Election Campaign Act violate the First Amendment rights of contributors.

The divided 5-4 ruling could have an immediate impact on November's congressional midterm elections, and add another layer of high-stakes spending in the crowded political arena.
Click to expand...
 
We are finally moving to the unlimited anonymous donations our constitution apparently requires.
 
BenBurch said:
Two can play that game. I have friends working on several wealthy Democrats to inject some millions...
Click to expand...

Please do. This is the printing press part of the First Amendment.

The Central Scrutinizer said:
Oh noes!!!! I bet the Dems will never win another election! :eek:
Click to expand...


Obama spent more in 2008 than both candidates did in 2004. I think he spent over a billion last time.

I do not sit around wringing my hands wondering what laws could be passed to make it easier for someone else to win.
 
Last edited:
The law, in its majestic equality, allows everyone to contribute to the best of his or her abilities.
 
anyone who's vote is changed by political ads [paid lies]
should not be allowed to vote ever again in any election

now there is a good form of voter suppression
 
newyorkguy said:
I'd feel better about this wholesale rewriting of our laws if it wasn't always by a 5-4 vote. :(
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother people when government arrogates the power to, say, take over health care.

Hmmm. Must be situational ethics depending on whether we like the law or not. What a fickle, shallow people we are. We should keep ourselves away from the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Doesn't bother people when government arrogates the power to, say, take over health care.

Hmmm. Must be situational ethics depending on whether we like the law or not. What a fickle, shallow people we are. We should keep ourselves away from the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It was disgusting when they turned a nice quiet recall of poisonous medicine into a big to do. The whole Elixer Sulfadamide thing went from a few trivial deaths into government overreach.
 
IMO transparency matters more than dollar figures. There is a compelling national interest in knowing how campaigns are funded. This I believe has been upheld several times.

Campaigns are now free to make documentaries/infomercials on "where the money comes from" and air them at any time. There will always be shell games played by both sides to appear transparent; they get to debunk each other.
 
Time to double down on one of the strategies that failed to get Romney elected last time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom