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:
Obamanation, the Great Liar and Fox News poster. Any evidence on Michelle's lack of family values yet?
Already did.
You just ignore them.
Oh.......and every point being made is 100% true.
Look it up and educate yourself for once.
Did you skip school today?
Nope.
I already have my two college degrees.
Not looking for a third.
Not you, Yhbuba the Marxist.
Two degrees ...bwahaha What school would take you? What are your majors, Popaganda and Misinformation? The Glenn Beck on-line University? Don't make a bigger ass than you are!
Did not see the evidence on Mrs. Obama, our First Lady, can you provide it again?. In typical right wing fashion you live in denial on a parallel world of fantasy,mixed with fear mongering and well hidden racial hatred
Apparently, education is something you lack severely.
That's why you attack others on having succeeded.
And your evidence..........YET AGAIN.........is the fact of Mrs. Oblahblah being documented at turning away poor people from the hospital she worked at in an effort to keep losses to a minimum.
Not very family friendly, wouldn't you say?
Sure beats getting donations from a convicted fraudster, Norman Hsu............like Oblahblah did.
Ignore This Author
Sure beats getting donations from a convicted fraudster, Hasan Nemazee.............like Oblahblah did.
Sure beats getting donations from a Chinese Buddhist temple................like Oblahblah did.
Sure beats getting donations from Canadian sources..............like Oblahblah did.
Scary thing for the Left to think about. All those rich Republicans spending their money on elections instead of supporting dead beats with redistribution.
Yeah, it sure worked good for you in the last election. Lol.
Sure beats getting donations under false, made up government offices..............like Oblahblah did.
Sure beats getting donations through credit card fraud...........like Oblahblah did.
Passing or allowing this challenge to pass will create another loop-hole to campaign financing.
Anyone, ANYONE who says political offices are not bought (or available to be bought) are fooling themselves.
Sure beats getting donations from homeless people with money fronted to them by ACORN...........like Oblahblah did.
Sure beats getting donations from unreported sources............like Oblahblah did.
You need a sedative pal!
Taking drugs would make me a liberal.
I also notice that you are not refuting a single instance that I've posted.
Wonder why that is?
Alan Lanza refused to take a sedative and look at the results. I'm afraid you are following his trajectory in life embracing reactionary and gun sucking ideas to the grave
Still notice you haven't refuted anything yet.
@ Yhbua
All the sedatives and mind controlling drugs are what screwed him up in the first place. Look around at any kid who is ostracized in any way at all. Every one of them is drugged up to the hilt. ADD, ADHD, whatever D they come up with, the drug companies have a drug. Many people today take no responsibility for their kids, and they've been doing it for a while too. Its much easier to medicate your kids than to nurture them yourself. Convenience
Not only should donations be limited on all sides, but the whole of campaigning should be revamped - from the ground up.
48 hours should be dedicated, donated by local networks, during which time political contestants present themselves, do their mud-slinging, and all the other nonsense we are bombarded with for the year leading up to the election.
Not only would this help crush corruption and political payoffs, but would free the networks to broadcast the things we want to see, and help us, the mere common folk, make better decisions about which contestants lies are more appealing to us, as they would have only limited opportunity to make their cases.
So just out of curiousity, in your fantasy world, how do the networks decided which candidates get access during that donated time? Just the major party nominees, or would Libertarians, Greens, Rainbow Coalition, Socialist Alternative, etc., all be granted equal network time?
During the primaries, when each major party may have sometimes up to 10 different candidates, who decides which of those 10 get airtime?
As Speaker Boehner said, When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? Your get less of it." To paraphrase his remark, "When you raise the price of democracy, guess what happens? You get less of it."
In 20 years CEO pay increased 480% with the greatest increases coming during and directly prior to 2008. This as 27 million people lost their jobs and homes. They were rewarded for cutting jobs and/or committing fraud on a massive scale. To sustain their "success" they will contribute as much as they can to any party.
Private businesses can do as they wish with the money they've made.
Sure beats receiving funds from non-profits that really weren't non-profits and thereby evading taxes...............like Oblahblah did.
Like social welfare groups like Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a group co-founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove, began a $25 million advertising campaign, carefully shaped with focus groups of undecided voters, that attacks Mr. Obama solely.
That kind of "charitable" foundation?
$1.00. Thats it! There should be a one time, one dollar donation to the person you want elected, period!!! That would be $1.00 for the President, or President elect., one for each office sought, Congress, senator, what have you!
Eliminate the nonsense of politics! Money cannot buy elections!
Each and every one of us, has one vote, therefore; it stands to reason-one dollar per vote!!!
What would be so wrong with that?
It should be we the people deciding the elections, not the big money!!!
But,...but,..but....but,..but
Freedom !!!!!!!
Notice that oneof the plaintiffs is the REPUBLICAN national committee. HMMMMM. Looking for more "legal" means to steal an election!
Yep, when you can't win elections on the issues, you have to try something else I guess.
Like attempting to suppress the vote.
Or having documented voter fraud.
Or changing the electoral college rules in blue states.
Or having documented voter fraud.
Or dropping registered voters from the roles just before an election.
Or having documented voter fraud.
Even the GOP admitted that in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent, far, far less than any amount that it would take to change the election results.
And if you think it thorugh, it's vurtually impossible to commit in-person voter fraud to any meaningful extent.
The key word is "think".
Lessadolla Sowers
Google her.
Convicted of multiple voter frauds utilizing the names of dead people.
Former Sen. Russ Feingold, co author of the McCain-Fiengold election reform act, stated back in 2008 that election reform was dead when then candidate Obama decided to forgo federal funds so that he could take all the private donations he could. He knew that he could get more money that way, than the limited amount provided the under federal law. Some people condoned this, saying that it allowed more people to donate, Sen. Feingold knew that it just opened the flood gates.
The ONLY documented case of voter fraud in this last election was by a REPUBLICAN working in the office counting votes in the state of Oregon. Let me repeat that. The ONLY documented case of voter fraud in the 2012 was perpetrated by a REPUBLICAN!
As long as the republicans get their talking points from Dumb Fux news and Rush Limbaugh, no amount of money is going to save them.
Right wing has too many major donors and too much self-interest to allow any reform in this area.
They wouldn't win even one more election were it not for the Undisclosed Donors.
Though in fairness, unions should be barred as well.
Former Sen. Russ Feingold, co author of the McCain-Fiengold election reform act, stated back in 2008 that election reform was dead when then candidate Obama decided to forgo federal funds so that he could take all the private donations he could. He knew that he could get more money that way, than the limited amount provided the under federal law. Some people condoned this, saying that it allowed more people to donate, Sen. Feingold knew that it just opened the flood gates.
I don't mean to be redundant, but people keep blaming republicans and try and act like democrats are poor innocents. The numbers just don't show a real difference between the dems and reps when it comes to raising money. BBB likes to think anyone that disagrees with him must get everything from FOX, and forgets he sounds just the the entertainers from MSNBC.
I believe our Government should not be for sale call it what you want these monies are nothing more than bribes no matter where they come from either foreign or domestic. It should not be allowed. I don't what anyone else thinks of what I have said, I have said what I believe. On the other hand votes should not be purchased with monies or promises. When will our government start listening to the will of the people that are legal citizens.
perhaps you can explain this liberal fantasy about "buying votes".
in the 2012 election outside groups spent $291,661,587 for the Romney campaign. Romney didn't receive any of that money, no voter received any of that money. So explain how this money constitutes bribery or buying votes?
Provide documentation to support this liberal fantasy that any voters received money to vote for a candidate?
Gee Larry where do you read that I said voters get the money?? I say its bribes because the money they used for the campaign did not come out of his pockets, but if you get this bill passed which will greatly help my company then here have a million or two for your campaign to me is a bribe!! you need to think for yourself and not just use catch phrases like Liberal fantasy. I see no accounting of where that money is spent. Unlike you who assume everything in government is on the up and up!! You might be a redneck if you need reading comprehension 101 again.
Obamanation has his head so far up his ass, it has passed through his big intestine, small intestine, stomach, esophagus, out his big mouth and back into his ass again.
BigBadBob has nothing, so has to resort to name calling.
Political donations capped? How innovative. This was done before and it was changed along with allowing the politicians to conceal who gave or how much.
Of course the amounts need to be capped and a totally clear audit trail as to who gave and how much and to whom needs to be made public for ALL to see.
How dare the law infringes on peoples right to own as many politicians as they want.
Well, if this dude wants to do something worthwhile, he could challenge the Supreme Courts decision to let foreign countries pour money into our elections. This seems more unconstitutional. And Mr Obama, didn't like it very much ether.
Everything I wanted to say was said in Posts 1, 1.1, and 1.2, with the exception of:
1) Why don't we change all election cycles to 4 years, not 2.
2) Term limits for all elected officials set at 8 years.
3) Like the UK, no campaigning until 1 week (maybe 2) before the election.
Scott--
1) Article I of the Constitution
2) Again Article I and senate terms are 6 years, how do you handle that?
3) First Amendment--Free speech, I can talk politics whenever I want as can anyone running for office.
There are aspects of the Constitution that need to be amended.
The Constitution was written as an "evolving document" and was not intended to be interpreted as fact.
When it was written there was no forethought of "high-capacity" clips or "semi-automatic weapons" and as such the Constitution needs to be amended.
For you to imply that just because OUR Constitution says something and therefore it can NOT be changed is wrong. 1776 was a long time ago and there were only 13 Colonies that fought off the British (all the way to Southeast Georgia) so that the "Crown" would not impose sanctions and the Freedom of Religon. Those times are long past and changes need to be made!
The Election Laws need to be changed so that Politicians are not "bought and paid for".
It's amazing how many people buy in to this myth that money buys elections, even after Romney significanlty outspent Obama in the last election cycle. Money doesn't matter if your message doesn't connect. Top economists have modelled this repeatedly, and money is rarely, if ever, a deciding factor in the outcome of the election. To the extent that politicians with more money win more frequently, it's because the money usually flows as a reflection of popular opinion, not a purchaser thereof.
This notion that elections are "bought" by the money spent in elections is nothing more than a not-so-thinly veiled contempt for democracy and the electorate. It treats the average voter as a halfwit easily distracted by shiny things unsuited for determining a rational candidate preference, and must therefore be carefully managed in to only being exposed to the "right" kind and amount of political messages by their betters. Contra to their arguments, the urge to curb campaign spending is not an urge to preserve democracy, but to curtail it and shape to the ends of the regulators to their preferred/predetermined outcomes.
The fact of the matter is, the emergence of super-PACS post Citizens United proved a boon for democracy in the 2012 campaign cycle. The real advantage in politics is not money, but incumbency, with incumbents winning re-election far more often than a level playing field would create. But challengers funded by super PACS unseated incumbents in record numbers. Super PACS allowed challengers who were not getting funded by major parties to their message out there, a message that the electorate responded to. Whether you agree with the candidates funded by these Super PACs or not is not the issue. What matters is that less campaign finance regulation lead to MORE ISSUES being discussed, and change, which are supposed to the valued outcomes of democracy.
Campaign finance regulation merely privileges those in power and creates stasis in politics.
Romney lost because he was a flawed candidate, and the President ran a better campaign with the money he had. In general, money DOES make a difference in elections, particularly on down-ballot races and issues.
Romney lost because he was a flawed candidate, and the President ran a better campaign with the money he had.
Sort of proves my point, doesn't it? Money doesn't buy elections. Candidates have to have the right message as well as the other intangibles of candidacy, and know how to run a campaign. No amount of money changes that.
In general, money DOES make a difference in elections, particularly on down-ballot races and issues.
"In general" is basically code for "buying in to the prevailing myth without critical reflection." Read Freaknomics or The Undercover Economist for some interesting analysis to get you out of that critical rut. They show, from down-ballot races, how money is a frequent predictor of electoral success, not the cause thereof. The "in general" observations fall victim to the post-hoc, ergo properter hoc fallacy that money preceding a successful election effort implies causation, when the reality is starkly different.
Sure, having money versus not having any makes a difference. That was the situation many of the "insurgent" candidates faced in challenging incumbents within their own party in primaries. The Republican and Democratic parties do not give funding to candidates within their own party challenging party incumbent. It simply doesn't happen as a matter of party policy. But Super-PACs looking to challenge the party elites financed candidates who were not getting money through the party machine, frequently to successful results. But even the unsuccessful challengers represent a boon for democracy, creating more (thus better) dialogue about important issues, or at least issues important to the challenger.
Limiting an individual's ability to donate means limiting candidates' ability to fundraise, and therefore privileges incumbents and party elites. Not of your two-line response comes close to refuting that.
Anyone who's familiar with the Citizens United opinion should be able to see the writing on the SCOTUS wall. Finally the "other shoe" has dropped. The personal limit will be going away, but that's not all, friends and neighbors. Don't be surprised if the conservative justices decide to use this case as a wedge to reconsider all contribution limits.