I guess this is great news for anyone who thought there wasn't enough money in elections.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled Wednesday that limits on the total amount of money individuals can give to candidates, political parties and political action committees are unconstitutional.

 

The major ruling, which was hailed by Republican congressional leaders as a First Amendment victory, removes the cap on contributions, which was set at $123,200 for 2014. It does not change limits, though, on individual contributions for president or Congress, currently set at $2,600 per election.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices.

 

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause – it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opinion.”

 

The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise `the most fundamental First Amendment activities,"' Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Should politicians have campaign finance limits? Hmmm, lets allow the politicians to decide on that law, i wonder what they will choose.....

Other than "hey the other side might spend more money than mine," what's the argument in favor of those limits?

Other than "hey the other side might spend more money than mine," what's the argument in favor of those limits?

Do you feel the influx of money in our campaigns over the last decade has been a good thing?

 

For example, the potential Republican candidates just spent the weekend kowtowing to a major donor in Las Vegas to try to get his support. I find that concept repugnant to the very idea of democracy.

 

There is also a legacy of direct corruption a mile long in most areas in this country which continues to be ignored.

 

Of course, a valid point in reply is that "these limits didn't do much anyway since you could just launder the money through a superPAC after Citizens United tossed out the rest of the rules", so in that sense I guess we're just cutting down on behavior that would be called money laundering in any other field of life with this decision.

I think the removal of these limits is horrible for the political process, as are the masked entities allowed via Citizens United.

 

I also think SCOTUS pretty much had no choice but to find this way.

 

What it comes down to is, these limits run afoul of Constitutional Law. The only way to fix it is via Constitutional Amendment, exempting political donations from 1A protections related to free speech. Unfortunately, the chances of that getting done are next to zero.

 

Do you feel the influx of money in our campaigns over the last decade has been a good thing?

 

For example, the potential Republican candidates just spent the weekend kowtowing to a major donor in Las Vegas to try to get his support. I find that concept repugnant to the very idea of democracy.

 

There is also a legacy of direct corruption a mile long in most areas in this country which continues to be ignored.

 

Of course, a valid point in reply is that "these limits didn't do much anyway since you could just launder the money through a superPAC after Citizens United tossed out the rest of the rules", so in that sense I guess we're just cutting down on behavior that would be called money laundering in any other field of life with this decision.

 

Honestly money hasn't made it any better or worse IMO. You see more s***tys ads I guess, but I can turn the channel.

 

Even before Citizens United there were ways of funneling money into campaigns. This doesn't allow a super rich person to buy an election - the individual limits are still in place.

 

And really, as a huge supporter of changing our system to be multi-party, I hope this is going to help that effort. Hopefully some rich person will funnel money into a variety of elections/a new third party to start changing the current system.

Honestly money hasn't made it any better or worse IMO. You see more s***tys ads I guess, but I can turn the channel.

 

Even before Citizens United there were ways of funneling money into campaigns. This doesn't allow a super rich person to buy an election - the individual limits are still in place.

 

And really, as a huge supporter of changing our system to be multi-party, I hope this is going to help that effort. Hopefully some rich person will funnel money into a variety of elections/a new third party to start changing the current system.

However, it absolutely enables the super-rich to have enormous influence over policy decisions.

 

We just discovered, for example, that no Republican candidate will be allowed to do as GWB did and refer to the West Bank as "occupied territories". The Republican Party is only allowed to consider those territories as part of Israel due to the influence purchased by one man.

For reference, here was the spending in 2012:

 

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

 

However, it absolutely enables the super-rich to have enormous influence over policy decisions.

 

We just discovered, for example, that no Republican candidate will be allowed to do as GWB did and refer to the West Bank as "occupied territories". The Republican Party is only allowed to consider those territories as part of Israel due to the influence purchased by one man.

 

Because American politics hasn't operated this way from the start? I mean come on man, money buying policy/influence has been happening forever.

Edited April 2, 201412 yr by Jenksismybitch

For reference, here was the spending in 2012:

 

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

No that wasn't. That only counts the 2 "official" super-PACS and not the dozens of smaller, off the books, should be illegal ones. Karl Rove's hundreds of millions of dollars isn't there.

Because American politics hasn't operated this way from the start?

Do you believe it is a good thing or a bad thing that a single man can buy the policy positions of an entire party, regardless of whether or not it has happened previously?

No that wasn't. That only counts the 2 "official" super-PACS and not the dozens of smaller, off the books, should be illegal ones. Karl Rove's hundreds of millions of dollars isn't there.

 

I'm sure Obama and the Dems had no similar set-up. GMAB.

I'm sure Obama and the Dems had no similar set-up. GMAB.

So you admit that the graphic you posted was BS is all I'm saying?

Justice Breyer: "Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard”

Do you believe it is a good thing or a bad thing that a single man can buy the policy positions of an entire party, regardless of whether or not it has happened previously?

 

Rich people set up this government, and you're surprised that rich people influence it? Yes, it's a bad thing in theory, but in practice i'm not sure it makes THAT much difference. If the rich really did control politics to the extreme you're talking about, why is national policy generally pretty moderate?

So you admit that the graphic you posted was BS is all I'm saying?

 

I didn't look at it closely enough to see if it was 100% accurate. But it doesn't really change my point - both campaigns generate and spend a s*** ton of money, and even if the GOP generated more, it didn't matter at the end of the day.

Justice Breyer: "Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard”

 

Which, again, has been the case from the start, from local elections to national elections.

Which, again, has been the case from the start, from local elections to national elections.

You ignored my question. Is that a good thing? Do you feel that plutocracy is better than democracy?

You ignored my question. Is that a good thing? Do you feel that plutocracy is better than democracy?

 

I did:

 

Rich people set up this government, and you're surprised that rich people influence it? Yes, it's a bad thing in theory, but in practice i'm not sure it makes THAT much difference. If the rich really did control politics to the extreme you're talking about, why is national policy generally pretty moderate?

 

But I'll say it a different way: Generally speaking, no, it's not ideal. But I also don't think this ruling, or the effect of the ruling, will make that much of a difference.

 

And like I said before, maybe there's a positive to this. If some rich person in Illinois wants to give money to conservative based groups in Illinois to try and break the liberal stranglehold on the city, maybe he/she has a chance now. They're not limited in their efforts to give to multiple groups in multiple races.

 

You're viewing this as a potential shield to democracy, i'm viewing it as a potential sword. I think in part, we're both right.

Edited April 2, 201412 yr by Jenksismybitch

I didn't look at it closely enough to see if it was 100% accurate. But it doesn't really change my point - both campaigns generate and spend a s*** ton of money, and even if the GOP generated more, it didn't matter at the end of the day.

 

Of course it does. For one, the two major parties can destroy any 3rd party just by outspending them. Secondly, once they get in, they do big favors for the big donors. It's legalized corruption.

 

Lindsay Graham is going to put forth a bill to ban online gambling. Because he hates it? Or because Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate, just started driving truckloads of money his way?

But I'll say it a different way: Generally speaking, no, it's not ideal. But I also don't think this ruling, or the effect of the ruling, will make that much of a difference.

 

And like I said before, maybe there's a positive to this. If some rich person in Illinois wants to give money to conservative based groups in Illinois to try and break the liberal stranglehold on the city, maybe he/she has a chance now. They're not limited in their efforts to give to multiple groups in multiple races.

 

You're viewing this as a potential shield to democracy, i'm viewing it as a potential sword. I think in part, we're both right.

And if, for example, a rich person wants to give a whole lot of money to a particular mayor who he happens to have a business deal proposed with...let's say something like selling off the city's parking meters for pennies on the dollar, a deal that will cost taxpayers of the city billions of dollars...well that's just the rich person supporting democracy too.

 

You complain about waste in government? This is, IMO, by far the biggest reason. And you can feel free to stretch that both ways and throw a public union supporting candidates who will protect their pensions or whatever you'd prefer into the same boat.

You ignored my question. Is that a good thing? Do you feel that plutocracy is better than democracy?

 

There are a lot of things that we have done in this country over the year to protect constitutional rights, which aren't better for the masses. I don't like this ruling, but it also makes sense with all of the other things we protect under the "free speech" umbrella.

And for both of your examples, this ruling didn't change anything. Citizens United didn't change anything. You're talking about money influencing politics. Shocker.

 

This is waste, but at least it's up to the person contributing the money whether it's going to be wasted or not.

And for both of your examples, this ruling didn't change anything. Citizens United didn't change anything. You're talking about money influencing politics. Shocker.

 

This is waste, but at least it's up to the person contributing the money whether it's going to be wasted or not.

If you think Citizens United didn't change anything then my God you have had your eyes closed for a long time. Those Super-PACS and the money they suddenly had available anonymously was a remarkable new thing that we haven't seen possibly ever.

If you think Citizens United didn't change anything then my God you have had your eyes closed for a long time. Those Super-PACS and the money they suddenly had available anonymously was a remarkable new thing that we haven't seen possibly ever.

 

I tune it out. I don't think it wins elections. Perhaps i'm naive, but I think there's a point where people start tuning ads out. So yes, the amounts of money have gone up and the amount of groups that can target candidates have gone up, but the messages all stay the same.

 

I'd like to see a study that shows the major shift in elections. Seems to me its the same types of people who were marketing and campaigning for/against the same types of policies only in a larger scale. When it comes down to those few undecided voters, are their minds really changed from that extra stuff? I'm not convinced.

 

edit: and while i guess we'll see what happens going forward, 2012 that extra money and targeted campaigning didn't change anything. Obama won and it wasn't close.

Edited April 2, 201412 yr by Jenksismybitch