HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Supreme Court Takes Campa...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:21 PM

Supreme Court Takes Campaign Finance Case, Will Rule On Contribution Limits

Source: Huffington Post

Paul BlumenthaL

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.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/supreme-court-campaign-finance_n_2717527.html

21 replies, 2509 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 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court Takes Campaign Finance Case, Will Rule On Contribution Limits (Original post)
Omaha Steve Feb 2013 OP
LineReply -
BumRushDaShow Feb 2013 #1
wordpix Feb 2013 #5
srican69 Feb 2013 #2
Veri1138 Feb 2013 #16
srican69 Feb 2013 #20
Veri1138 Feb 2013 #21
iandhr Feb 2013 #3
OneAngryDemocrat Feb 2013 #4
truthisfreedom Feb 2013 #6
Occulus Feb 2013 #11
Drunken Irishman Feb 2013 #13
OneAngryDemocrat Feb 2013 #15
Veri1138 Feb 2013 #17
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #7
Veri1138 Feb 2013 #18
rurallib Feb 2013 #8
politicaljunkie41910 Feb 2013 #9
Veri1138 Feb 2013 #19
The Stranger Feb 2013 #10
Bossy Monkey Feb 2013 #12
Historic NY Feb 2013 #14

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:27 PM

1. -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:15 PM

5. yeah, and Rush Limpballs, too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:29 PM

2. why dont we simplify things and just let the chamber of commerce pick our representatives...

at least we will be spared from a barrage of political ads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:15 AM

16. Several Republican legislatures are...

 

...proposing passing resolutions to return the appointment of Senators back to the States. Instead of direct election.

Consider that 24 states are solidly Republican. 19 states are solidly Democratic. And the rest are split between Democratic, Republican governorships with opposing legislatures. Would mean a solid:

48 Republican Senators. 38 Democratic Senators. And the rest a toss-up.

As Republican states have already admitted to gerrymandering House of Representative districts for another decade of Republican control...

And just how is it that several Republican leaning states are considering the very same resolutions? ALEC.

The Republican wing of the Plutocratic Party is doing its job to cement plutocratic control of our government.

Now, consider that fascism by plutocratic control of a government does not happen over night. To acclimatize the public to accepting the unacceptable, plutocrats and their collaborators (for the US, collaborators would mean both political parties, the President - whomever they are, and key regulators) must plan for small steps. It was very fortunate for the plutocrats that 9-11 happened - as this provided the opportunity to make a giant leap forward in their plans ala The Shock Doctrine (Naomi Watts).

The PATRIOT ACT. Guantanamo. Executive assassinations (not officially practiced in common law since John the First of England in the 13th century except by various dictators) first targeting "others" "over there" now being applied to American citizens on American soil (this is called "planning for the future" and will be done in the context of "law enforcement" of dangerous criminals, at first). Institutionalized financial corruption with explicit government support and guarantees (Wall Street). TARP passed by Congress while the Federal Reserve doled out over $27 trillion to banks and financial houses without the need for Congressional approval (why bother, after all - TARP was for show and the Federal Reserve tried to keep the details secret and the public will never fully understand, anyway). Fraudclosure, the legalized theft of real estate (what better for the new landed aristocracy: the plutocrats - now all they need are official titles of nobility). The accepted breaking of contracts and corporate theft by corporations while you are shamed publicly, and humiliated; the average American believing after being told that breaking contracts is immoral; while corporations practice this on a daily basis. Etc...

Fascism does not happen over night. Dictators do not come to established democracies with centuries of democratic tradition in a coup. They creep up on you. Taking their time. Planning in decades. They already own the wealth. They can wait a few decades to finally own you.

Now, going back to the original Republican led proposals of directly appointing Senators? Baby steps to solidifying the plutonomy (look this one up on how Wall Street feels about you - written in 2007 by JPM - interesting read on how the ultra-wealthy and the servitors feel about you - both corporate and political servitors). The Chamber of Commerce, if direct appointments of Senators is ever allowed, will have a huge say in who runs the government.

"Welcome junior Senators Dimon Jr. and Koch Jr. May we wash your feet?"

The idea (and more importantly, justifications) of appointing Senators has been implanted in the public consciousness. Just like many ideas, mentioned above, have been put into practice after the justifications were made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Veri1138 (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:12 AM

20. We the people need to bring the guillotine back into action....

except that I would replace the blade with a big ass anvil.

and frog march all the plutocrats to it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:56 AM

21. Careful...

 

such talk might land you on a targeted killing, executive assassination, Presidential hit list complete with autograph by one Democratic President, Barack Obama.

Nah, you'll have to wait a few years after they take out the first criminal on US soil with a weaponized drone. Five years, maybe ten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:36 PM

3. This is bad news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 01:44 PM

4. Voting is a privilege - not a right...

Voting is a privilege - not a right...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:22 PM

6. I think this works in our favor.

If individuals can give unlimited amounts, ultimately they can out-contribute the corporations.

However, I think there should be no money in politics from the public whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthisfreedom (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:04 PM

11. Good one!



I like those jokes. I'll be sure to use them in the future!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:26 PM

13. Similar to how 'Citizens United' would help the left!

Because then our organizations, like the unions and those rich Hollywood types, could then out-raise corporations.

Yeah...how'd that turn out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #13)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:49 PM

15. When One Billionaire can Commit More than 99% of the Population...

The idea is ludicrous when one billionaire can commit more to a campaign than the other 99% of the population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:20 AM

17. The fatal flaws in your argument is...

 

...that unions are treated differently (right to work states and the ban on forcing union members to contribute union dues for political ppurposes - money is fungible). And more importantly, do not possess near enough the money that corporations and individuals will be - and are - able to contribute.

How would that turn out? Well...

Union membership has shrunk from around 33% in the 1950s to around 11% while their political clout - while substantial - is vastly outweighed by private corporate and business interests. Complete with the shrinking income of Main Street while the ultra-wealthy and financial sectors steal all of the income gains and represent the majority - if not all - of corporate gains over the last few years and few decades.

That is how it turns out. You were saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:22 PM

7. I think of SCOTUS like nascar these days all they need to do is put company symbols on their robes

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)

to show who owns them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:24 AM

18. Well... there is John Roberts...

 

When ACA came up for review by the SCOTUS, it seems that he was more concerned with the legacy of the court than with his own jurisprudence and the applicable laws and the matter of stare decisis, in his interpretation of the Constitutionality of ACA.

If he holds such concerns again, expect a defeat of the challenge. If not, expect a victory for the plutocrats. In the latter case, John Roberts will remember the stinging criticisms of his reversal on ACA and the plutocrats will win.

Nothing is ever absolute. Scenarios are just that, providing the reasoning behind the decisions - while allowing for the possibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:48 PM

8. wowie fuck. Well buy-buy to what ever was left of democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:52 PM

9. So the people who decided that "Corporations are People" and campaign contributions are free speech

want another bite at the apple. Their Citizen's United ruling hasn't done enough damage, interfering in local elections, and allowing big money to decide who runs and who doesn't, and ultimately who wins and who loses. And it's not just the Koch brothers and the Sheldon Adelsons of the world that worry me. I don't like that Michael Bloomberg is getting into the act as well, even if his cause is a noble one.

When wealthy people are in a position to influence elections (primaries as well as the general) as a nation we lose. 2012 was a sign of elections to come. Just because the rightwing couldn't pull it off in 2012, doesn't mean it's not doable. It just means back to the drawing board for them and learning from their mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:27 AM

19. This is just another baby step...

 

...in establishing complete control of society by the plutocrats. It is not settled matter, yet.

However, the fact remains that such challenges are now de jour and - if everything goes the wealthiest's ways, will be.

To subvert the entirety of a wealthy, well established democracy takes opportunity and well-timed planning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:55 PM

10. This can't end well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 03:18 PM

12. The suspense is killing me!

You can put a sarcasm smilie here if you like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:05 PM

14. One should ask how much is it to buy the Presidency...

one billion , two billion. Its come to pass that a majority is a minority due to gerrymandering, corporate donations and now....its isn't about the votes much its about how much money one has or needs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread