SC Takes Another Campaign Finance Case

[108]

Call me jaded, but does anyone think this court won't overturn this limit?

There is a direct correlation between Crony Capitalism and campaign finance rules being gutted, and there will be no serious reform in this country that is for the will and benefit of the people that doesn't start with strict Campaign finance rules being implemented.

But good luck with that, as the 'Fox's are guarding the hen house'


Link

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will hear a case challenging the per-biennial cycle limit on campaign contributions from individuals.

The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, argues that the limit on what individuals are allowed to give candidates ($46,200 per two-year cycle) and parties and PACs ($70,800 per two-year cycle) is an unconstitutional violation of the individual donor's free speech rights.

The U.S. Court of Appeals already ruled in favor of keeping the biennial limits, which have been in place since 1971 and were upheld in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case. By accepting the case, the Supreme Court is stepping into the thick of another controversial campaign finance case just three years after ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that corporations and unions can spend freely on elections.

If the court rules against the two-year limits, it would mark the first time a court has overturned a part of the landmark Buckley ruling that deals with campaign contribution limits. This is not terribly surprising as the court has been hostile to campaign finance laws ever since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a supporter of campaign finance regulation, was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's conservative bloc who is opposed to campaign regulation.

[RealDeal]

why should the government be able to restrict how much of your own money you give to a candidate, campaign, etc.?? You should be able to spend your money any way you want to express your opinions.

[Gator_Tom66]

^^^ exactly.

[108]

Originally Posted by RealDeal

why should the government be able to restrict how much of your own money you give to a candidate, campaign, etc.?? You should be able to spend your money any way you want to express your opinions.

that's kind of like asking why should the government be able to restrict led based paint or dumping toxic waste into waterways...how about restricting slavery

why does the Gov have the right to do anything?

i mean, you know why, but dang, are you gonna be so attached to the question that it overrules the practiced outcome of not placing restrictions that it hurts the people its supposed to be serving?

[MichiGator2002]

So raise the individual limit. The solution is more freedom.

[RealDeal]

Originally Posted by 108

that's kind of like asking why should the government be able to restrict led based paint or dumping toxic waste into waterways...how about restricting slavery

why does the Gov have the right to do anything?

i mean, you know why, but dang, are you gonna be so attached to the question that it overrules the practiced outcome of not placing restrictions that it hurts the people its supposed to be serving?

give money to a candidate to express an opinion v. lead based paint? absolutely spot on analogy!!!!

[108]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

So raise the individual limit. The solution is more freedom.

thing with $$$ and freedom is that, it only increases the freedom of those with it, while simultaneously decreasing the ones without it.....

basically pitting the top percents versus everyone else

is that really freedom?

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by 108

thing with $$$ and freedom is that, it only increases the freedom of those with it, while simultaneously decreasing the ones without it.....

basically pitting the top percents versus everyone else

is that really freedom?

Since those that don't have it are free, welcome, and encouraged to get some of their own, not seeing a problem. Does the existence of blue boxes mean that women who are treated to less prestigious jewelry are less free? Of course not.

[corpgator]

Yep, with all that infinite money floating around, everyone is as free and equal as everyone else.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by 108

that's kind of like asking why should the government be able to restrict led based paint or dumping toxic waste into waterways...how about restricting slavery

why does the Gov have the right to do anything?

i mean, you know why, but dang, are you gonna be so attached to the question that it overrules the practiced outcome of not placing restrictions that it hurts the people its supposed to be serving?

Your analogy is way off base here...............

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by corpgator

Yep, with all that infinite money floating around, everyone is as free and equal as everyone else.

There they go with equality of outcome...

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by 108

that's kind of like asking why should the government be able to restrict led based paint or dumping toxic waste into waterways...how about restricting slavery

why does the Gov have the right to do anything?

i mean, you know why, but dang, are you gonna be so attached to the question that it overrules the practiced outcome of not placing restrictions that it hurts the people its supposed to be serving?

I am sorry but those are horrible anologies...

[108]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Since those that don't have it are free, welcome, and encouraged to get some of their own, not seeing a problem. Does the existence of blue boxes mean that women who are treated to less prestigious jewelry are less free? Of course not.

comparing equal representation and jewelry?

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by 108

comparing equal representation and jewelry?

Not nearly as preposterous as treating representation and campaign donation as interchangeable terms.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by RealDeal

why should the government be able to restrict how much of your own money you give to a candidate, campaign, etc.?? You should be able to spend your money any way you want to express your opinions.

Because of corruption and the appearance of corruption, which Buckley v. Valeo recognized were compelling government interests in 1976.

And you can spend all the money you want. There are not expenditure limits. You just can't give it (in excess of the limits, which are attached to inflation) to the candidate or his/her campaign committee or do it in coordination with the candidate or his/her campaign committee, making it a contribution.

[108]

Originally Posted by surfn1080

I am sorry but those are horrible anologies...

horrible to you or not, the Gov is supposed to work on behalf of the people, and if the practiced outcome of relaxed campaign finance rules severely hinders that, then it needs to be limited

i just can't get why the average conservative can't seem to see the dangers posed with not limiting campaign finance...

[corpgator]

Originally Posted by 108

horrible to you or not, the Gov is supposed to work on behalf of the people, and if the practiced outcome of relaxed campaign finance rules severely hinders that, then it needs to be limited

i just can't get why the average conservative can't seem to see the dangers posed with not limiting campaign finance...

Because in their fantasy land, the outcomes only favor them and bring no harm to their "side." They also think they'll one day get a piece of the action too.

[JerseyGator01]

Campaigns should be penalized if it is later found out that a contribution led to the donor's financial benefit. Most of it is just legalized bribery. DC could learn from the NCAA, at least in theory.