Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Overall Federal Campaign Donations

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   


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.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Overall Federal Campaign Donations

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,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22]

This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] 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[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[26] nor did it concern campaign contribution limits.[27]


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 million.

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)




posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 

Is this really a 'partisan' issue


I'm as conservative as they come, and I see a problem with this decision.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 


That is a good point, I am glad you brought that up, I think my biased take on the issue is that it is a partisan issue, so that part is opinion, and you made me reconsider. Although the news is reporting that Republicans love the decision and Democrats don't like it - that's just the news.


I do think that the more money that is spent on campaigns, the less the voter has influence in politics. Besides being misled, I think it could also align politicians (on either side, definitely) more with rich contributors than voters.

Even before you mentioned it, I was thinking that it would affect both sides equally. Realistically, the decision is a neutral one because either side can dump extra money in now.
edit on 03amThu, 03 Apr 2014 00:56:52 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 03amThu, 03 Apr 2014 01:01:40 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 03amThu, 03 Apr 2014 01:02:07 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   
I'm not a fan of this either. I would like to see tax payer money used for campaigns and eliminate all donations.
It would make it harder to campaign in all 57 states though
edit on 4/3/2014 by mugger because: add



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
This is a big win for large corporate interests.

Congrats guys!



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Why are private corporations or individuals allowed to contribute toward campaign funds at all??? I do not understand this country....Here listen to what the average people have to say while I hand you 5 million dollars and let's see which one of us you are influenced more by?? Pffffttt....donations, this is buying politicians for your own agenda. Plain and simple.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to
 


well thats it then ,,the Republic is dead....We now live under a Trade Federation of Corporate/Communications Alliances, controlled by the Banking Cartel...



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Sounds like more million-dollar steak dinners hosted by corporations.
Mhmmmmm, steaaaak.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Look at it this way .....

The losers will get stuck for real big money now !!!

Consider it all a "Re-Distribution"



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
i don't subscribe to any political label....i consider myself a realist, and a practitioner, and adherent of common sense...

common sense answer: corporations, unions, and other special interest groups, should not be able to buy elections.

a corporation is not a person, a union is not a person, restricting their ability to influence an election, by way of financial coercion is not an abridgement of anyone's first amendment rights...

it's a shame that the grown men and women of the supreme court are so utterly bereft of common sense...



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Why do democrats hate it?

Why do republicans like it?

Is it because both parties in terms of finances are on equal footing now?



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


If anyone seriously believes this will change a damn thing, you guys are all nuts!!

Listen, the big money donations will just be on the side and more corrupt now, you will have people dumping truckloads of cash on these people's doorsteps rather than on the books...This will not change a thing at all in my eyes.

The people with money need politicians and the money will not stop flowing to them to "pick up the phone when big money needs them"....This is the way of the world now and there is nothing that will stop it.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Snarl
reply to post by darkbake
 

Is this really a 'partisan' issue


I'm as conservative as they come, and I see a problem with this decision.


It is, without a doubt, a partisan issue!

That's why the court's decision was split right down party lines with the four liberals justices voting against it and the five conservative justices voting in favor and ruling the day.

What was is that President Truman said? "How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you turn to see who's hitting you?"



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Flatfish

Snarl
reply to post by darkbake
 

Is this really a 'partisan' issue


I'm as conservative as they come, and I see a problem with this decision.


It is, without a doubt, a partisan issue!

That's why the court's decision was split right down party lines with the four liberals justices voting against it and the five conservative justices voting in favor and ruling the day.

What was is that President Truman said? "How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you turn to see who's hitting you?"


and that, right there, is the problem....

people, prescribing to political lables, are given free license to "interpret" (read; butcher, to suit political agendas) the constitution, and bill of rights...

a prerequisite to being a supreme court justice should be an absolute dedication to neutrality, and absolute willingness to uphold the law, AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as one WISHES it was written.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Daedalus

Flatfish

Snarl
reply to post by darkbake
 

Is this really a 'partisan' issue


I'm as conservative as they come, and I see a problem with this decision.


It is, without a doubt, a partisan issue!

That's why the court's decision was split right down party lines with the four liberals justices voting against it and the five conservative justices voting in favor and ruling the day.

What was is that President Truman said? "How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you turn to see who's hitting you?"


and that, right there, is the problem....

people, prescribing to political lables, are given free license to "interpret" (read; butcher, to suit political agendas) the constitution, and bill of rights...

a prerequisite to being a supreme court justice should be an absolute dedication to neutrality, and absolute willingness to uphold the law, AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as one WISHES it was written.


Yeah and that's why we saw the very same split on the court when it came to the decision determining that "corporations are people too," despite the fact that the word "corporation" never appears anywhere in the Constitution.

It's pretty obvious to me, just who is interpreting the Constitution according to their individual wishes and NOT as written. That would be the five conservative justices.
edit on 3-4-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I'm happy with the decision. Now we conservative can go toe to toe with all of the democrat unions out there.



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I think that John Boehner also came out in support of this decision, but then it doesn't really surprise me in the least that conservatives are supporting this issue.

What did Ron White say? "You can't fix stupid!"



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Flatfish
Yeah and that's why we saw the very same split on the court when it came to the decision determining that "corporations are people too," despite the fact that the word "corporation" never appears anywhere in the Constitution.

It's pretty obvious to me, just who is interpreting the Constitution according to their individual wishes and NOT as written. That would be the five conservative justices.
edit on 3-4-2014 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)


again, you're playing the label game, alongside the political favorites game....i don't even know why i'm bothering to reply to you, you're obviously too entrenched in the "my club vs your club" mindset, to see what i'm saying....

BOTH sides are wrong...because they're prescribing to political labels, instead of doing their damned job, which is to uphold the law....
edit on 3-4-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Fromabove
I'm happy with the decision. Now we conservative can go toe to toe with all of the democrat unions out there.


great, so now you'll have your equal chance to manipulate votes, buy elections, and subvert the entire electoral process.....

the fact that you see this as some kind of victory, makes me feel sorry for you...
edit on 3-4-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Snarl
reply to post by darkbake
 

Is this really a 'partisan' issue


I'm as conservative as they come, and I see a problem with this decision.


This is how they get control of the government. The more it costs to run for office the more power the Oligopolies have.
edit on 33430America/ChicagoThu, 03 Apr 2014 11:33:36 -0500up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join