Supreme Court case could give wealthy donors more latitude in elections

[applegrove]

Supreme Court case could give wealthy donors more latitude in elections

By Robert Barnes and Matea Gold at the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-case-could-give-wealthy-donors-more-latitude-in-elections/2013/10/03/26a66d82-2ad4-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html

"SNIP.............................


The whole thing is an important First Amendment free-speech thing,” McCutcheon added. “It’s about your right to spend your money however you choose on as many candidates as you choose. It’s freedom.”

At the heart of the case is the framework created by the court’s seminal 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, which upheld limits on campaign contributions that Congress put in place two years earlier in response to the Watergate scandal. That ruling drew a distinction between contributions, which the court said could be limited to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, and expenditures, which the court determined were a form of direct personal expression.

That decision led to the current lopsided campaign system, in which donors can give a federal candidate only $2,600 per election, but can donate endless sums to super PACs, which must spend their money independently of candidates and parties.



...................


“Base limits need to be much larger, if they survive at all,” said James Bopp Jr., a campaign finance lawyer representing the RNC in the case. “Nobody thinks you can buy even a Democratic congressman for $2,600.”



.............................SNIP"

[kestrel91316]

1. ...............because the poor babies just don't have ANY say in

our electoral process right now. Oh, the humanity!