Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Overall Federal Campaign Donations
The Supreme Court’s divisive decision Wednesday striking down a Watergate-era limit on campaign contributions was the latest milestone for
conservative justices who are disassembling a campaign finance regime they feel violates free-speech rights.
It again reveals a court deeply divided between liberals trying to preserve campaign finance restrictions they say are essential to ensuring democracy
is not distorted by the wealth of the powerful, and conservatives who think the First Amendment trumps efforts by the government to control who pays
for elections and how much they spend.
The first of these rulings, Citizen's United, can be found here:
Wikipedia: Citizen's United
The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by
corporations, associations, and unions, i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political
candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.
This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, or else removing limits on how much
a donor can contribute to a campaign. However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate
campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,
nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.
So the Citizen's United ruling basically says that corporations can pay to advertise for political candidates as long as it is independent, as in not
directly affiliated with the candidate's bank account.
This new ruling increases the amount someone can donate to political campaigns (not individual ones) from $123,200 for the 2014 elections to $4
Supreme Court's Rejection of U.S. Campaign Funding Limits
Opens Door for Big-Money Donors
Republicans love this decision, but I do not because there have been many cases where politicians have been purposefully promoting factual errors
lately in order to gain power and also benefit at the expense of others. This happens on both sides (thanks Snarl).
A lot of times these factual errors are laced in pretty words that are hard for the average person to discern, especially because they can be blatant
lies that need research to uncover.
I don't agree with lies, inaccuracies, or harming people to get ahead, and I think that these can increase as money becomes more important than
listening to voters.
One problem with so much money flowing into campaigns is that it leaves most people without a voice - instead of having a voice proportional to the
size of the population with a certain opinion, one's voice is proportional to how much money they have.
And this means that you likely won't have a voice, because the top .01% eclipses you in money and through advanced media deceptions it makes it harder
to discern reality from spin.
As with any situation where the balance of power is skewed, the goal of the rich will be to get voters to vote outside of their best interest through
deception - even if this isn't on purpose, it could happen through lack of empathy with people who have different lifestyles.
edit on 03amThu, 03 Apr 2014 00:59:22 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)