BREAKING: Caps on Total Campaign Giving Struck Down by U.S. Supreme Court
Source: Reuters / Bloomberg
@BloombergNews: BREAKING: Caps on total campaign giving struck down by U.S. Supreme Court.
@SCOTUSblog: Breaking: #scotus strikes down aggregate campaign contribution limits 5-4 per Chief Justice Roberts in McCutcheon case.
Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign donation caps
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON | Wed Apr 2, 2014 10:46am EDT
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expanded how much political donors can give candidates and parties in federal elections by striking down a key pillar of campaign finance law.
On a 5-4 vote, the court struck down the overall limits on how much individuals can give to candidates, parties and political action committees in total during the federal two-year election cycle.
The ruling leaves in place base limits on how much a donor can give individual candidates and laws that require candidates, parties and political action committees to disclose information about donors.
The court was divided over how sweeping the ruling actually is. The biggest impact is that a single donor can now give the maximum amount by law to as many federal candidates, parties and committees as he or she wishes.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3116V20140402?feedType=RSS&irpc=932
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Open the floodgates!
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)They have effectively taken the place of a separate body, and made their own law
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)It stands to reason that they would pull another rabbit out of the hat for this year's.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,524 posts)that we MAY be able to have it backfire on them. "My Republican opponent believes that the rich should be able to have more influence than you on running the country. You can see by the constant campaign commercials that he/she runs against me that they think you do not deserve a voice! Think about that the next time you see his/her campaign ad!"
IkeRepublican
(406 posts)Should go full throttle on bashing this ruling in between now and the mid terms. Only real hope for it being struck down would be another Watergate type-thing with a Republican president...and I don't think that's even possible considering how every bastard who got the Iraq mess rolling is living the dream while drinking the blood of our great American soldiers.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Greenwald sees it as the best thing since sliced bread.
Democracy can now legally be crucified on a cross bought and paid for by the highest bidder.
redwitch
(15,150 posts)"Corporations are people my friend" 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)control.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)
aggiesal
(9,959 posts)"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini
Benito Mussolini is the father of fascism, so he should know.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)to push hard for appropriate Constitutional Amendments to take such issues out of the hands of the Supreme Court, then all the decrying of the death of the democratic process in our country is pointless.
If you can whine about it, then you should be able to act. Of course, that would require long-term dedication and determination and the acceptance that a portion of your personal life will be expended in the service of your country. How many of us will take this burden upon ourselves?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)modern politics in which people assume that voting in the 'right people' and voting out the 'wrong people' will somehow result in genuine progress.
The 'right people' tend to become quite comfortable and complacent once they've been office for a while, eventually becoming nothing more than mouths to provide lip service to the principles they once proclaimed.
It's not the Supreme Court that's messed up on the campaign finance issue - it's anyone who is worried about the future of our 'democracy' but believes that institutionalized mega money campaign financing could possibly be brought to an end, or even minimized, by way of anything less than an amendment to the United States Constitution.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)me. But apparently not for the conservative asshats who parade as supreme court justices.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)But then, it had been totally debilitated, in a vegetative state and on life support for some time now.
Pulling the plug at last was the only kind thing to do.
One dollar, one vote.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Most of us had no clue about the "Deep State" in those days.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)trying to hide it anymore
villager
(26,001 posts)n/t
LonePirate
(14,078 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)Hit them where it hurts -- their pocket books.
CanonRay
(15,208 posts)Disgusting.
Roy Rolling
(7,279 posts)I'm sure the outrage over "legislating from the bench" will be all over Faux News-----not.
mikeysnot
(4,823 posts)Projection is their only weapon they have...
florida08
(4,106 posts)vigorously usurping our government
dotymed
(5,610 posts)take-over of Amerika is further "legitimized."
We won't take to the streets so I guess we double down on suffering.
BumRushDaShow
(151,322 posts)
ananda
(31,552 posts)..
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)
Solly Mack
(94,862 posts)
malthaussen
(18,080 posts)That should put a few dollars into circulation.
-- Mal
Maybe this decision will finally force our base to get out and vote in off year elections. The only way we can counter the money is by voting in more democrats so that we can create a firewall against the money and then work to change the campaign financing rules because unless Scalia or Thomas suddenly have a coronary we are stuck with the 5-4 issue for quite some time. We need to isolate the Supreme Courts ability to legislate from the bench.
2banon
(7,321 posts)The U.S. seems to rank the bottom of the list on voter turn out in the worlds "democracies".
Theories widely vary, from "contentment" to "disenchantment". I'm thinking it's more of the latter, rather than the former.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Yes please?
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts) lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)country. Hell is not good enough for those who decided this
mehrrh
(233 posts)The SCOTUS just doubled down on Citizens United -- a rich man can spend unlimited funds on a candidate or a party --- overwhelming ordinary citizens and their needs and desires with his own personal wants.
juajen
(8,515 posts)Does this ruling mean that "Hollywood" spending has no limit?
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades-old limits on the total money donors can give to federal candidates and parties, issuing its biggest campaign-finance ruling since the 2010 Citizens United decision.
Voting 5-4 along ideological lines, the court today said the caps violated the speech rights of Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican official seeking to give candidates, parties and political committees more than the $123,200 maximum. The court stopped short of undercutting a 1976 ruling that allows caps on contributions to individual candidates.
The limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s lead opinion.
SunSeeker
(55,536 posts)Robert is dead wrong. Bush sure set his legacy appointing Roberts. We'll keep having these 5-4 outrages until fat Tony or one of the other conservative tools dies...assuming we have a Dem President when that happens.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)What a f-ing ahole along with the rest of the 5.
And we're too damn silent.
mountain grammy
(27,730 posts)
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I really don't know what it will take but there will be a breaking point. Or maybe I just need to believe that. 
2banon
(7,321 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)...and that will be the next big truly meaningful political "change."
"America," however, is finished.
JudyM
(29,542 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,869 posts)--oh, never mind. That was yesterday.
Shit.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Anyone who claims to be a liberal/progressive, yet won't unequivocally support Democrats & the Democratic Party, and keeps shouting that there's no difference between the two parties IS OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MIND!!
rtracey
(2,062 posts)It does work both ways, no? Sorry, but if we are going to have a corrupt court system, better to use the abuse then to be caught with it... Now lets get our Democrats to start pumping billions in.....
rtracey
(2,062 posts)I was hoping someone would catch my humor..... maybe....I guess when it come right down to it, not too funny huh, you know... US citizens getting F'd like this....
handmade34
(23,326 posts)you have to laugh, as crying is the only alternative...
you are spot on... we are getting f^*ked big time!! education... getting people to understand the meaning of a this is important... us regular folks are so busy just maintaining, keeping our lives together, raising kids, figuring out how to make ends meet that often we don't take the time to realize how important politics are... I say VOTE as if your life depended on it; because it does!!
earthside
(6,960 posts)As I am understanding this the $2,600 contribution cap per candidate per primary and general election stands.
However, it means that the Koch boys can give the maximum to every single candidate for U.S. House and U.S. Senate in 2014. The aggregate cap has been eliminated.
Call the good ol' USA an oligarchy; call it a plutocracy ... it sure ain't much of a democratic republic anymore.
underpants
(190,133 posts)joshcryer
(62,515 posts)Which given Citizens United and this ruling would be obvious.
Nay
(12,051 posts)with free speech to have an individual cap, too. In about 6 months that cap will be gone as well.
joshcryer
(62,515 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)a de facto nobility. The revolutionary war has been lost.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)If you look at the big spenders, most of the top 25 or so are Democrat or liberal-leaning. (The Koch pukes are like 24th.)
This lets us spend more than them.
Nay
(12,051 posts)no Mighty Wurlitzers to broadcast our propaganda; no state grassroots orgs to pour money into every dem race, even if it's for dogcatcher; no effective national ads; not much of anything. The Pubs are 30 years ahead of us with all that shit, and we don't seem to be able to learn from them. If people truly are so dumb that they need to be propagandized to vote Dem, well, then, we need to swallow our revulsion and do what we need to do to turn things around.
But I'm betting we won't. The Pubs have also been successful in putting in their candidates under I or D designations -- that's why we're getting so many blue dogs.
mostlyconfused
(211 posts)I was getting the impression that the Koch's were throwing money around and trying to influence elections more than anybody else.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)The are way down the list --- 59th -- I thought they were higher.
They are, however, assholes.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
The top 10 are:
Act Blue
American Fed & State Union
NEA
ATT
Int'l Bro of Elec Workers
National Association of Realtors
Goldman Sachs
UAW
Carpenters & Joinders Union
SEIU
mostlyconfused
(211 posts)but it looks like there are many others with the potential to have much more influence on political races and the way politicians lead (or rather follow the will of their big donors).
Am I safe in assuming none of us on DU are particularly concerned if the new ruling allows Act Blue, the NEA, or UAW to make a lot more contributions and have more influence?
However, there are plenty of big fish on that list that are righties and spend a whole lot more than the Kochs.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Sure, there are bigger fish than the Kochs, but the Kochs are particularly crappy people. Hence, the focus.
Politicub
(12,309 posts)Welcome to the new feudalism. We're going back to the days of monied nobility.
underpants
(190,133 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They just made it legal.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts) Orrex
(65,063 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)we are officially over the abyss.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)No longer is it one man one vote. The more money you have the more politicians you can buy. So it's more like 20 politicians per multi-millionaire.
The rich will rule us and the Dancing Supremes will ensure it. Now all bow down to our rich elites and their boughten justices to give it a sheen of legality. See how destabilizing a handful of uber rich people are to society.
vi5
(13,305 posts)This means the Democratic party will shift even further to the right as they chase that much needed campaign cash from wealthy/corporate donors.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Now that SCOTUS has stripped away even the illusion of democracy, guess what is coming next.
Politicub
(12,309 posts)One will have to be broken and subdued.
Truer words have never been spoken.
muriel_volestrangler
(103,491 posts)If the limit is now $32,400 to a national party committee, plus $2,600 to each federal candidate, they can put in a bit over a million to an election (plus more in state elections, I guess). The real big spenders still need to use the Citizens United decision to funnel several million in via 'non-profit' 'educational' or 'civic issues' organizations that just happen to put out endless ads attacking Democratic positions.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)....yes there's too much money in politics, but since there's still a limit on each campaign, having an arbitrary aggregate limit never made sense.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)...thanks for telling us though
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Whether there's an aggregate limit on campaigns or not, there's already an open season on spending through Independent Expenditure groups.
TRoN33
(769 posts)Nearly all of decisions pertaining the campaign contributions tends to be before mid-term elections.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)No, wait, make that FOUR CHEERS.
Aw, fuck it, you can give them as many cheers as you want...
spinbaby
(15,264 posts)Best government money can buy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/
Just a reminder that this was GG's apologia for Citizen's United. Can't wait to read the column on McCutcheon.
Dawson Leery
(19,426 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)
lastlib
(25,784 posts)We lost the bid. Stick a fork in us, we're done............
. .
yurbud
(39,405 posts)
Hissyspit
(45,790 posts)Botany
(73,949 posts)..... and HW Bush (C. Thomas)
The republicans know that the demographics from now out into the future is brutal
to them so they have to do everything they can to make sure the playing field is
not level.
Oakenshield
(628 posts)Where the wealthy rule as untouchable kings and queens. Somebody grab a guillotine, it'd high time we had ourselves a French style revolution.
DonCoquixote
(13,847 posts)I thought both parties were equally as bad.,.(sarcasm)>
aintitfunny
(1,423 posts)Who are obscenely not supreme.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)....Given the relative ages of Supreme Court Justices, the next President will have the distinct privilege of nominating 2 if not 3 Supreme Court candidates. If a Republican wins in 2016, life as you know it in this country will dramatically change. You would see a 5-4 Right wing advantage moving to a 6-3 or 7-2 advantage.
In the next 2 years, every other consideration from the Left pales in comparison to the Supreme Court nominee issue. With that in mind, it is my opinion, if the Democrats skew farther to the Left with a Sanders and Warren, then you greatly put at risk the chances the of losing the essential middle voting block that decides Presidential elections to the Republican candidate. The fall of 2016 is no time to put on your "purist" swagger. The stakes are just too damn high.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)As if we haven't been in an inexorable shift to the right for past 30+ years. Trying to get back to what we know has worked in the 20th century in creating a middle class and reducing poverty is in your words..."skewing" to the Left.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)I merely stated that Presidential elections are won and lost based on which candidate wins the majority of those voters in the middle of the political spectrum. If you go with Sanders or Warren, you risk losing that middle and ending up with a Right wing advantage in the Supreme Court of 6-3 or 7-2. If that happens, you can kiss the middle class goodbye as well as welfare and choice and the EPA and public schools and Evolution and on and on....
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Some want to characterize them as extremists but nothing could be further from the truth.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)You think the President won 2 terms campaigning as a Republican lite centrist? I remember a fairly leftist campaign and he won handily. Sadly, we didn't get a leftist President even though he campaigned as one.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)Remember now: No criticising the appointed heir and definitely no ignoring the orders given upthread
(in BOLD CAPS) to lock step and march blindly on the given path without daring to engage one's brain
(much less review the history of the previous decades ...).
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)
jimlup
(8,008 posts)damn it! Now we have to fix this somehow. And we may not be able to until the people realize what has happened and unfortunately by then it will likely be far too late.
dhill926
(16,953 posts)aggiesal
(9,959 posts)"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini
Benito Mussolini is the father of fascism, so he should know.
Evasporque
(2,133 posts)GOP loves to be bribed.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)This is what every investor in Wall St silently funds & supports. Corporate attacks against our democracy, our environment, our labor laws, our criminal justice system, and our future.
While others are trying to GOTV and discuss the importance of electing good people and defeating bad initiatives. They are funding the very attacks against us. Funding lobbyists, climate change deniers, restrictive voting, redistricting, corporate apologists.
By they're own actions they are saying the best thing is for everyone to be in Wall St. That is the future they envision for all of us.
Some of them even claim they campaign for and support liberal candidates. To invest in corporations and then turn around and try to rally people for a champion against them? Hard to even imagine digging out of that hole. At best, one may break even. At worst, we are living in it.
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)I haven't had my first cuppa yet.
This sounds horrible by what some of the comments are, but can you tell me in simple words like I haven't yet had my cuppa?
progressoid
(51,317 posts)This concerns individuals' donations. i.e. the Kock brothers.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)holy smokes! bastards.
Javaman
(63,678 posts)even though it's fake choco and the gin is watered down, it's still something, right? RIGHT??
No one should be surprised by this. before I opened this thread, I said to myself, "myself, I bet the vote was 5-4" and lo and behold, I was right.
remember the old saying about insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
well, since the court is 5 conservs to 4 libs, why do we all expect them to do something different?
with this ruling the concept of voting just was watered down just that much more.
"it's not who gets the most votes, it's who counts them" someone once said, but to paraphrase that, "it's not who gets the most votes, it's who that funds them".
We had a good run, but we got sleepy and stupid on too much tv, crap food and the brainwashing of a never ending spending spree with empty pockets.
and here we are, beaten down like the population under stalin. sure you can protest, but you better be prepared for a little pepper spray, a gas canister to the face or shot because you wore a hoodie.
Yeah, freedom. rah rah. just another word for when you have nothing left to lose. how much more do we have to lose?
Brigid
(17,621 posts)
Javaman
(63,678 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)The Stranger
(11,297 posts)Too bad Harry Reid is a pile of warm goo.
He fucked us for a generation.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)As did every Democrat who voted for these "justices."
They_Live
(3,344 posts)This just legitimizes underhandedness.
Are there still limits on contributions? Were limits changed, or removed?
stuffmatters
(2,579 posts)So is this a possible silver lining in this hideous right wing SCOTUS decision. Could it make the Kochs more visible (instead of their
deliberately impenetrable, shapeshifting, secret network of dark money 501s) and even take some money out of Rove's. Norquists etc coffers into direct contributions?
Dem individuals and corps are never ashamed, covert about their contributions. But The GOP hate/pollution money laundering thrives in the dark. I noticed in Feb 2014 SD mayor election recently that the Dem candidate clearly listed Union support in his ads. And he was, of course, relentlessly attacked by the Repub candidate for his union support.("pension collusion" was the slur) Meanwhile it's impossible, given all the RW love for SanDiego, that Koch's and Rove's and Norquist's and ALEC didn't seed and compose the antiunion flood of Repub Faulkoneer commercials. They fed into the Lincoln Club, "Chamber of Commerce", NFIB. ...there was probably a " their probable toxic donor ids remained hidden.
Maybe with this change, and the obscenely narcissistic personalities of Koch, Adelson, Freize et alios, these billionaires will be suckered into making detectable donations to their Repub candidates. The current "mainstream" Repub gambit is to claim they are "independent" more than Repub, since the Repub brand is currently so insane. And to keep thier rightwing donors well hidden so that they cannot be identified as "the Koch Bros candidate." under 501 id shielding (c4) Under both 501 c3 & 4 we as taxpayers subsidize the tax free donations of all of these rightwing billionaires.
That's my understanding, maybe I'm misinformed. But seems like this ruling might coax a few of these villains into the Sunlight and some of their donations onto the tax rolls.
It's a horrible decision and screams corporate/rightwing capture of SCOTUS and our tarttered democracy. But it might, just maybe, cause these RW creeps to overplay their hand.
GeorgeGist
(25,504 posts)meet coffin.
sakabatou
(44,635 posts)stuartsdesk1
(85 posts)The 1st amendment to the constitution says -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Everyone is guaranteed the right to speak their mind and to print their message in a newspaper.
But, is everyone guaranteed the right to be heard? If I have enough money, can I deluge the
public with unlimited propaganda? Can I shout down my opponents? Can I buy up more advertising
space in all of the newspapers? Buy up more air time? Buy 30 seconds of Superbowl time? Or buy up all
the advertising time during a Superbowl telecast?
There is no such guarantee in the 1st amendment. Reasonable laws limiting the right to be heard, having
the goal of insuring fairness, preserving the rights of disenfranchised and the poor to express their views are
not in violation of the constitution.
The Justices apparently are unable to read simple English. I thought this was a requirement
for entering law school? Evidently not.
For a lighter take on campaign finance, "Citizens United" and money in politics
please go to www.stuartsdesk.com
Javaman
(63,678 posts)"money talks"
that's all the conservs on the supreme apparently want to know.
Dopers_Greed
(2,647 posts)Fuck you SC.
greymattermom
(5,798 posts)No one has to watch tv commercials anymore. No one I know does, unless they watch live sports. On the ground organization is the key. Expensive, but probably not as costly as a media blitz.
tclambert
(11,161 posts)Hell, they might as well approve charging fees for voting, to defray the costs, don'tcha know. "You say you don't have a thousand dollars in cash on you? Well, then you can't vote. We hafta pay these election workers, you know. It's not like a bunch of retired senior citizens will volunteer to oversee these elections. We only hire highly skilled professionals to screen prospective voters. They get extensive training on how to prevent voter fraud, and weed out all but the most serious voters."
Beacool
(30,369 posts)First Citizen's United, now this decision. The presidency will go to the side who can raise the most money. That has traditionally tended to favor the Republicans (except for the last two elections, but Obama won't be in the running in 2016).
This may sound predictable coming from me, and it will rankle many here, but I can only think of one viable Democrat who can counter the millions upon millions that the Republican nominee will have in his coffers: Hillary.
By 2016, the GOP may hold majorities in both chambers of Congress. If they also gain the WH, I don't see how we will recover as a nation. Look what 8 years of Bush brought on, and that was pre-Tea Party madness.
mucifer
(25,137 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Worse SCOTUS ever.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)IkeRepublican
(406 posts)We all know it, but it deserves a play when it calls for it and I consider it applicable here.
icarusxat
(403 posts)under reacting...
blackspade
(10,056 posts)How much we're they paid off?
pam4water
(2,916 posts)Ned Fenwick
(25 posts)George W. Bush, the gift that keeps on giving. But really, Ken Blackwell, Katherine Harris, T.Blossom, Bryan Fischer, Wayne LaPierre, et al, those fine folks who knowingly helped cheat that moral-free, conscienceless frat boy into the White House twice are what's brought us the slow-motion destruction of a way of life that was once the envy of the world. It's quite a wrecking crew, as blurbed, accurately, on the dust jacket of a recent successful book.
greatlaurel
(2,012 posts)Roberts could very well be the the most stupid chief justice in history. He may not be the most corrupt, but he is clearly the most stupid man to ever get on the Supreme Court. That smarmy smile of his really shows that there is really not much going on in that brain of his.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)We didn't keep it.