E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to delve once again into the controversial issue of limits on money in politics.
This time, it's the limits placed by federal law on how much an individual can contribute to candidates and political organizations.
The court today agreed to take up a challenge brought by an Alabama man who claims it's unconstitutional to prevent him from giving more than $46,200 to candidates and $70,800 to PACs and political committees. He does not challenge the limit on contributions to an individual candidate, but he does claim it's unconstitutional to prevent him from contributing to as many candidates as he wishes.
The Republican National Committee joins him in the challenge.
Leave a Comment:
Republican philosophy....
If you can't win their hearts, buy them.
Talk about phuct up. Idiot.
Democrat philosophy.....
If you can't steal it or buy it, screw it up so bad nobody else wants it.
egtrav, liberal philosophy, if it's not good for you, lie and blame it on Conservatives, if you are caught having kinky sex in the white house with a young lady and a cigar, yell I didn't have sex with that young lady. If you are black and from a kenya, lie, cover up and you blind follows will do the rest doctoring up a fake birth certificate. if you commit a crime, simply say, I didn't do it and if I did, so what>
Wow Greg and unreal, I guess the republicans can be funny after all.
If you call delusional sputtering frustration funny.
I have a question about buying elections. How is this done?? Oh I think I know, the people in the USA are to stupid to think for themselves so they just go by the ads on TV. Remember now none of the candidates ever lie about anything. Bottom line people are getting more brain washed by the hour. That is getting dangerous for our country
When millions are spent on house seats and tens of millions are spent on senate seats then the paycheck we the taxpayer pay for these peoples work is nothing in their viewpoint, their real employer is the fat cats who they have to beg money from. From what I understand all these politicians spend the majority of their time calling campaign donors not on the peoples work. I suppose if all these politicians have to do is call one person for money instead of hundreds that would simplify their begging but wouldnt that would also force them to follow that one persons viewpoint even more?
The left has no problem with burning the American Flag and calling it free speech. Now kids in public schools are allowed to curse at teachers and it's considered free speech. Yet somehow the left thinks it's ok to limit the amount of money an individual can send to a individual or group of individuals who speak for them. The sky should be the limit. The more I spend the louder my voice can be heard. That is the world we live in. Get use to it.
"The more I spend the louder my voice can be heard." Which means if you have money, then you are more important than anyone with less, and it should be your God-given right to have the rules changed in your favor, right?
Matt, if we did that, they would keep you bunch of loser liberals off these sites and the republicans, who are smarter and much more wealty than you low life liberals.
Thanks Un-reallystupid, you have made me laugh the loudest today!!! Conservaturds "Smarter" than Libs? Really? How much was spent on your dead horse last race? Did it win? NO, HELL NO! Keep throwing your money down the toilet, where the Rethug party is headed!!!!
Keep us laughing, idiot!!!!
So...I can afford a three dollar bumper sticker for my candidate and I put it on my car, so that is free speech and a three dollar donation.
If I can afford a ten dollar sign for my yard to try to infulence my neighbors, that is free speech and a ten dollar donation.
If I can afford a $750 banner to put up on my office building (which I own) to try to influence those in my office park, that is free speech and $750 spent on expressing my political opinion.
If I can afford $15k to run an ad promoting my candidate, that is free speech and my 15k spent on expressing my political opinion.
If my company, which I own, decides to spend $1.2Mil of my money supporting a candidate because he will be better for my business, that is free speech and me expressing my political opinion.
What should be the line and how do you justify it?
There should be no line except for that drawn by the Left.
I'd say people can contribute any amount they like, although it should be disclosed by the organization receiving that donation.
Parties that cannot vote, like companies or foreigners, should not be able to contribute at all.
andreus, show me some facts, not whats coming our of ur arse. I believe that the heat was but on obama because of his foreigh donations. Then again, since he is probably not an american citizen, being a kenyan, it would be ok in a sick kind of way.
How about no donations PERIOD! The candidate runs on merit only not money attained!
12 stormy and the news networks are going to do this for nothing. How about the way the left leaning news reports things now. Would they have to sign off that they will be fair and unbiased and failure could be punished by the death penalty! Think they would go for that?
so, does this campaign "finance reform" include the unions? minority of the workforce, but top contributors? hmmm
I think you should be only allowed to donate to canidates that will represent the discrict where you "live", for example all the outside money that went to the governor of Wisconsin during his recall election . He spent more time fund-raising out of state then he did in state. The Kochs should have no say in any state politics other than where they actually live.
you are going to include all the outside the state money that went towards the recall effort, too, right?
sadsadworlk, how about all the outside money form unions and all the outside union members protesting in Wisconsin. Finally how about the cowardly liberal politicians that went to a border state and hid out, rather than stand up and challenge the conservatives.
Do we really want to take away all these hard-working American Lobbyist jobs at a time when the economy is already in the dumps? I used to think the answer was to get money out of politics, but then I realized that election season is when the wealthiest individuals are the most likely to come off a dime.
Money in politics is the cause of many, if not all of this nations' problems.
I will only donate to people running for office and never again to a political party.
Political parties like to use with-holding of "funds" tactics against people like Tea-Party candidates!
If somebody wants to donate a million bucks to a single candidate yeah let him, but they must declare that they are giving the money. I don't like the money but I hate the secrecy. SCOTUS has said that money is free speech, fine but if I want to use that freedom I should be made to be open about it.
In the UK they limit how much money is allowed to be spent on political advertising, and they only are allowed to advertise for the 5 weeks leading up to the election. Much less money spent and minimum negative advertising.
The amount of money that was donated in the last election could have helped this country in vastly more positive ways. It seems to me that they donated more to avoid paying the taxes than they will now pay in the taxes. Apparently being rich does not make you money smart.
Mousesj, they also limit your medical care. Does that bother you?
I don’t think he has a leg to stand on. By allowing someone with unlimited wealth to donate without limit, would amount to individual PAC to foster his/her will on the public. It in effect restricts free speech of the average Joe. It is reasonable to believe that the wealthy will have a little more say in elections than the average person, but to allow this would be to stifle free speech.
Why buy Elections: You just vote in new Rules:
Yeppers...just like Cheney and Bush...they changed laws to better suit their donors. See where, that got us? Can you say Patriot Act, or companies are people?
GET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS...
Sure beats getting donations from citizens of foreign countries............like Oblahblah did.
Unfortunately,are correct. It should not be allowed, for any candidate. But it has occurred, for quite some time to both parties. You need to stop your hating, and get on board like a good American. Your side lost; that means America wants President Obamas vision. You are in the minority, but you are still an American; so you will still be represented. It is the American way (and no where else...) to go and support the winners, of our elections. One does not rule the day, when they lose. They did not have enough Americans vote for them, so they MUST SHELVE their plans, for when and if they win. They can not block the American progress forever. Economics do not work, that way. Be an adult American and act like one...not another naysayer loser.
My "side" has nothing to do with the nefarious donations received by the president.
It does not give him a pass at what he's done just because he's won the election.
I believe in Geo. Washington's opinion on political parties...there need, only, to be one. Thereby, the electoral campaign process will not usurp politicians abilities to try and work, for all Americans. They would work toward the betterment of America, and not their parties interests.
We know how obtrusive, slanderous, and down right mean campaigns have become. More money seems to be spent on campaigns, these days, than on education.
The US Government needs to pay, for equal exposure, over all media, for the politicians, that qualify for the office. No special interest groups, companies, or PACs monies would be allowed. A referee, with a team, of verification officers will be present, at each appearance, and will hold the candidates to task, and be truthful in their stances, or be disqualified. All candidates will participate, at the same venue, at the same time, so we might understand their differing opinions better. Then we vote, for president, all as Americans, with NO party loyalty.
Or, we could drop a paint balloon, over several crowds; then vote, for your favorite painted candidate.
I must stand with G....this is the beginning phrase, that did not appears above...lol
King George would love this SCOTUS.
Sure beats getting anonymous donations over a website............like Oblahblah did.
The money spent in campaigns needs to be looked at, but the Biggest Boogie man is politicians continually on the campaign. I'm tired of electing these guys and getting 6-12 months out of them, if I'm lucky. They spend far more time looking for money and figuring out how to stay in office, than they ever do, trying to fix this country. We need to limit the time spent on getting elected!!!
Sure beats getting donations from Daffy Duck, Bart Simpson and King Kong............like Oblahblah did.
No matter how many tricks the Republikan and Tea Party reactionaires try, to buy elections, and disenfranchise the minority and student votes, We the People spoke in November and will do it again in 2014.
Racists and reactionaires need to accept a changing America or get the hell out of it. Israel needs settlers to exploit land taken away from Palestinians.
No, you get out.
Greg, are you a racist, reactionary or both?
Sure beats getting donations from the same organization (ACORN) through it's myriad of false front organizations..........like Oblahblah did.
Obama ROCKS!
Because you think he is a ROCK star? So many dreams, so little mind.
Yeah.......breaking the law is sooooooo cool, isn't it Yhbua?
let em donate all they want as long as its made public . our country is missing a big revenue pot if they would put a tax on campaign contributions . just look at what was spent in the last election . citizens united didnt work very well did it as long as the people participate in elections .