Elites Win Another Round: Court Strikes Down Donation Limits

However, the court left intact the current $5,200 limit on how much an individual can give to any single candidate.

All this "ruling" has done is make it possible for people to throw more money into two party system really.... Doesn't mean Bill Gates can just toss a few million to a candidate.

reply to post by signalfire

As far as bribery...those funny little stars on the cars of Police Benevolent Associations purchased to keep from being scrutinized by the cops should be considered bribery, and the free one's that friends and family of police department get should maybe be considered bribery or at least unethical.

When that changes there just may be some hope, but it will just swing back in the wrong direction again in the future and have to be dealt with again then.

Nothing ever changes forever, it just runs in cycles.

And as far as contribution limits go, I don't know why this is considered current news other than some talking head was talking about a another stuffed shirt blabbering about it since fictional corporate persons already had their supposed "Freedom of Expression" supported awhile ago and it only makes sense to allow an actual, real live flesh and blood person to donate whatever amount they please....

Well, doesn't the American taxpayer deserve the best government money can buy?

Corporate money always buys the elections anyway. As Zappa said....

"politics is the entertainment arm of the military/industrial complex"

We might as well forget elections anyway! The neocon corporate fascist's have won.

Institutional corruption is now the operating principal in America.

www.youtube.com...

METACOMET

buster2010
How can people being able to buy elections be a good thing? Also why would the elite pump millions into a small time politician? Because he will only do what they want and work to pass the laws they write. It is no surprise that only the conservative judges would support this travesty.

You do understand that the reason corporations are afforded the equal protection of the laws is because of US code, and this entire issue has nothing at all to do with judges? Judges don't write the law.

Read the article it is about the supreme court which is made up of nothing but judges.

What is the issue ?

Never have given money to a politician, and never will.

Have better things to spend my cash on.

buster2010

METACOMET

buster2010
How can people being able to buy elections be a good thing? Also why would the elite pump millions into a small time politician? Because he will only do what they want and work to pass the laws they write. It is no surprise that only the conservative judges would support this travesty.

You do understand that the reason corporations are afforded the equal protection of the laws is because of US code, and this entire issue has nothing at all to do with judges? Judges don't write the law.

Read the article it is about the supreme court which is made up of nothing but judges.

Touche, good sir. One must give credit where it is due.

Alas...

reply to post by 3shadesofblack


That is whole point. Now even the small town/city politicians will be sucking up to big money now instead of their constituents. And the money can come from anywhere. Sure, a grocery store clerk in Smalltown can compete with outside Koch money.

MOMof3
reply to post by 3shadesofblack

 

That is whole point. Now even the small town/city politicians will be sucking up to big money now instead of their constituents. And the money can come from anywhere. Sure, a grocery store clerk in Smalltown can compete with outside Koch money.

Interesting.

How exactly will that affect elections?

reply to post by MOMof3


Hmmmm, that's an angle I didn't think of. Before they had to pick and choose, so all the big money only really went to presidential, maybe some senatorial races. The effect the ruling might have, is make sure an independant or third party will never win a race at any level. Hell, it could go as far as school boards going the way of the two party only system. Something to think about I guess......

The Republican-packed Supreme Court just confirmed the death of U.S. Democracy. We are are now an oligarchy.
Pay to play!

reply to post by TKDRL


reply to post by MOMof3


I've been involved in small town elections. I've seen good people that could have done good work, but they could not unseat the entrenched politicians. They had great grassroots support, but there just wasn't enough money available to overcome decades of name recognition, and favorable TV time, and good ol' boy networks. In one case, the grassroots politician had a couple of folks willing to put 10 or 20 thousand dollars up, but the campaign finance rules limited them to $2500.

With this change, a handful of decent people with a good platform can go toe to toe with a 20 year mayor, or a 20 year city commissioner.

This does nothing to make it easier for big money to get involved, because big money was already involved, but this does help less experienced politicians get into the game.

reply to post by rupertg


Republican packed? It's 5-4 in favor of republicans, hardly a solid majority there....

Maybe more people will be forced to wise-up and reevaluate their lifestyles. Start growing some of their own food, collect rainwater, bicycle instead of driving, get fit and off the toxic pharmaceuticals. Seriously, how many (b?)millions of people on Earth are literally paying some evil companies to poison them? General Mills puts poison in your crackers, Coke put it in the soda, GM put it in your air, and somebody else gets to come rake in profits on selling you the cure. ftw!

reply to post by 3shadesofblack


The ruling does not change how much you can donate to each candidate, but how much total you can donate anywhere. The limits of how much you can toss per candidate remain unchanged. Unless I am not understanding it correctly that is, which as a possibility.

They object to a 1970s Watergate-era law restricting someone from giving no more than $48,600 to federal candidates, and $74,600 to political action committees during a two-year election cycle, for a maximum of $123,200.

McCutcheon says he has a constitutional right to donate more than that amount to as many office seekers as he wants, so long as no one candidate gets more than the $5,200 per election limit ($2,600 for a primary election and another $2,600 for a general election).

So basically this ruling only affects people that are wealthy enough to donate more than $123,200 per year. And it doesn't effect how much they can donate to each campaign at all. Right?

There is a lot of disinformation on the SCOTUS decision, and many of the posts here reflect that. The Court struck down the AGGREGATE LIMIT, not the INDIVIDUAL limit. That means that the Koch brothers, George Soros, and YOU are still limited on how much you can give an individual candidate, and instead of this individual limit being applied to ten candidates, you can give to as many individual candidates as you want. That's all the decision does.

So, the Kochs and Soros are rich enough to give the individual limit amount to 100 candidates, and you aren't. Indeed, you're not rich enough to give the individual limit to ANY candidate, much less ten, much less 100. So this idea that only now can the rich buy elections is somewhat suspect. They are under the same individual limits you are.

So you are really no more disenfranchised than you already have been.

I would think it would be a commonly agreed upon policy to have money removed from politics.

Apparently, though, the monied interests have positioned it as a left vs. right fight.

This ruling, and all like it, are bad for this country and the totality of the bad (corrupt) things regarding our governance is so overwhelming that keeping it all straight in one's head is nearly impossible... not to mention depressing.

Much like the totality of environmental degradation... which is also, curiously, positioned as a "left vs. right" fight... instead of the factual matter it is... in reality... a consensus reality most of us inhabited before spin split it up.

We have been so manipulated that easy-to-comprehend right vs. wrong has been assigned teams, made murky and conditional and removed from rational discourse through slimy media and slick marketing.

One could say "The sky is blue" and the spin docs would be out in force in the media saying, "but what is 'color' anyway and people with sight are weak and silly and have been wrong before and this paid shill insists the sky over his house is grey."... and thus marketing will kill us all.

reply to post by 3shadesofblack


Another example of out town big money influencing elections. I can see all kinds of EVIL unleashed with this. Are you kidding, when did MONEY influence ever work for the average person? Now there will lobbyists every where.

Danbones
yes, corporate money is free speech
go figure...
but
When it comes to buying free speech
I would have thought it was far cheaper to just get a chimp to hack a voting machine

It occurs to me if someone wanted to demonize free speech and cause the public to turn against it, they might do really unpopular things and make a lot of noise about it so as to make sure everyone knows about it.

I mean, after all, they don't really need to strike down any laws to get what they want. They've been doing it despite the law anyway. So you have to wonder what this is really about, hmm?

reply to post by xuenchen




Let's say, Duke Industries has run out of rivers to poison in the South.

So they head west to find other rivers to pollute. They find a sleepy little town in Idaho with a beautiful pristine river, perfect to pollute. But the taxes are too much, like a dollar. The best way to get those taxes lower and pollute the river, is to own the town by buying the one or two elected officials it has. I assume you are an adult and can take the story from there.