HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Republican Party Lawsuit ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:56 PM

 

Republican Party Lawsuit Seeking To Make Citizens United Even Worse Is Headed For The Supreme Court

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/11/993351/republican-party-lawsuit-seeking-to-make-citizens-united-even-worse-is-headed-for-the-supreme-court/?mobile=nc

Citizens United v. FEC gave corporations unlimited ability to spend money on elections, so long as these attempts to buy elections did not involve direct contributions to a candidate. Shortly thereafter, a lower court ushered in the era of super PACs.

To date, however, the courts have left federal limits on contributions directly to candidates or political parties largely unmolested. Under federal law, individual donations to candidates are limited to $2,500 per candidate, per election, and total contributions to candidates, political party committees and similar organizations are limited to $117,000 every two years. Thus, GOP billionaire Sheldon Adelson can currently give tens of millions of dollars to groups trying to elect Republicans that are separate from the Republican Party, but there remains a cap on how much he can give the GOP directly.

A lawsuit brought by the Republican National Committee now wants to eliminate most of these modest restrictions on election buying, and eliminate the $117,000 cap on donations by people like Adelson. Moreover, because of a federal law that requires the Supreme Court to hear certain campaign finance cases, the Supreme Court is now almost certain to take the case potentially handing the Republican Party their biggest Supreme Court victory since Citizens United.

9 replies, 898 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Republican Party Lawsuit Seeking To Make Citizens United Even Worse Is Headed For The Supreme Court (Original post)
Fire Walk With Me Oct 2012 OP
mother earth Oct 2012 #1
Fire Walk With Me Oct 2012 #2
SoCalDem Oct 2012 #6
CrispyQ Oct 2012 #8
mother earth Oct 2012 #9
ProfessionalLeftist Oct 2012 #3
mother earth Oct 2012 #4
starroute Oct 2012 #5
wordpix Oct 2012 #7

Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:10 PM

1. The SCOTUS should be dissolved and new justices should replace these scumbags. They know fully what

they have wrought and how they have usurped the power of the people and rendered this the best oligarchy money can buy.

Seriously, they should be ousted, every damn last one of them...this is a travesty & I cannot fathom it getting worst than it already is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mother earth (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:13 PM

2. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mother earth (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 09:36 PM

6. We need MORE justices..

There is no official "limit".. I know that FDR tried to "pack the court" & failed, but we are a much larger country now, and our SCOTUS is truly , and disgustingly politicized now.

We need a court of 19..

Cases to be heard would be reviewed by ALL 19. but the ones who sit on the actual cases (13 would be my choice) chosen would be drawn randomly, so at any time, there would be no certainty as to which ones would decide.. That alone could prevent a LOT of right wing "nuisance" cases from being elevated.

There should also be fluidity on the bench, so I would like to see them no longer as lifetime appointments.

Min age 60...max age 75
no more than 15 yr appointments

By allowing no one under 60, you could assure that they had already raised their families & might be less susceptible to being there to "feather their nest"

They would also be more likely to have had a full career, and have a lot "on the record".

A movement of people on and off the bench would automatically allow for a flexibility of ideas and principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:49 AM

8. Great ideas!

I love the one of 19 but only 13 per case & they don't know which. And absolutely no lifetime appointments!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 04:51 PM

9. No more lifetime appointments, I fully agree! :)

No appointment or term should ever be for a lifetime....ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:15 PM

3. Mark my words. This has been their plan for decades.

I heard one of these greedy assholes - I think it was on the radio - NPR to be exact - talking about how The US Supreme Court is DELIGHTED with the results of Citizens United. And, how Citizens United DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH. He said they want corporations and people like Adelson to be able to donate UNLIMITED amounts of money DIRECTLY to political campaigns. Period.

This is what they're after. And the next election - with the next President probably choosing TWO SC justices - WILL DECIDE what happens with this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessionalLeftist (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:32 PM

4. This is class warfare by the elite, the sole purpose for the GOP is to keep those tax

cuts for the wealthy...and seemingly it's SCOTUS's aim to make laws to keep the stranglehold grip tight...I will be very surprised if there are not incredible amounts of voting irregularities and/or an outright steal...this is why the machines have never been made secure & have replaced paper ballots.

We are screwed...looks like nothing good will come until it all crashes down around us...this does not bode well...they've gotten away twice before using the same tactics they'll use again. At least now we know where the funding for it came from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 09:15 PM

5. Oh, of course -- this is the Shaun McCutcheon case

You have to click through a few links to get to the details -- but the suit was actually brought by a dude named Shaun McCutcheon, and the RNC is only involved because they're one of the Republican groups he wants to give more than the legal limit.
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fec.gov%2Flaw%2Flitigation%2Fmccutcheon_dc_memo_opinion.pdf

McCutcheon's lawyer is Dan Backer, who was behind a previous case that loosened the regulations on SuperPACs. I posted about the whole thing a few weeks ago in a thread that began with the interesting title, "Romney Staffer Committing Charitable Fraud."
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1014215800

Backer is involved in the fraud described in the original post. He's founded a lot of PACs that mostly are aimed at Tea Partiers -- and even the Tea Party people complain he's ripped them off. His groups are the kind that collect a lot of money through direct email solicitations, spend most of it on themselves through salaries and consulting fees, and make only token donations to candidates.

Here's what I wrote about the earlier case on that other thread:

The executive director of One Nation PAC is Kelly Eustis, a 23 year old former College Republican whose own consulting firm has been a major beneficiary of the PAC's expenditures. Its treasurer is Dan Backer, the founder of DB Capitol Strategies. And that's where it gets really interesting, because according to SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dan_Backer):

"In January 2011, Dan Backer, Esq. of DB Capitol Strategies PLLC filed suit against the Federal Election Commission on behalf of National Defense PAC, Rear Admiral James J. Carey , and Kelly S. Eustis 'to protect the free speech rights of individuals - ensuring that Americans remain free to contribute to political groups who speak out about issues and candidates without government imposed limits.'

"The basis for the case was Kelly Eustis wanting to give $10,000 to National Defense PAC (NDPAC) to run attack ads against Democratic Representative Anthony Wiener. Since NDPAC was a traditional PAC, not a Super PAC, Eustis could only give $5,000, the maximum acceptable contribution. Plaintiffs argued that NDPAC should not have to create a separate entity to exercise its constitutional rights."

This suit was successful and led to the creation of something called Carey PACs, which are particularly insidious because they can collect both hard and soft money donations -- as long as they keep them in separate bank accounts -- and therefore undermine campaign finance regulations.

Backer is currently involved with a suit by another associate of his, Shaun McCutcheon, that aims to completely overturn the limits on how much individuals can donate to federal candidates, on the grounds that any kind of restrictions violate freedom of speech. In other words, Citizens United on steroids.


There's more information on this out there, but it's tangled up with a rat's nest of scandals and fake scandals involving ongoing covert wars between right-wing bloggers and Anonymous that defies ordinary human understanding. But the simple version is that it's dirty all the way down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:43 PM

7. these repukes totally disgust me, what more can one say?



Just buy the country and install whatever imbecile will do the bidding of the wealthy plutocrats. Monarchy, here we come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread