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

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:06 PM

U.S. Supreme Court to revisit campaign finance limits

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by OKNancy (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Reuters

U.S. Supreme Court to revisit campaign finance limits

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:13 GMT

Source: reuters // Reuters

* Case brought by Alabama businessman

* Republican National Committee involved in challenge

By Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Three years after easing limits on corporate political donations in the Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to consider whether to lift caps on how much individuals may contribute to candidates.

In a brief order, the court agreed to hear McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a challenge by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee to limits on aggregate donations over a two-year period.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in September had rejected McCutcheon's argument that capping donations violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But if the Supreme Court disagrees, it could use the case to change part of its landmark 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, that upheld such caps, which are sums in the mid-five figures.


Read more: http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/detail.dot?id=7f104d70-75c1-498f-841b-fae54b18e474

10 replies, 1547 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:10 PM

1. Does anyone actually want to wait for the actual 5-4 decision to come out?

Although maybe I'm wrong and the Supreme's will decide that small donations are illegal and that only donations greater than $100K are allowed. But since they've already decided corporations can give unlimited amounts, no way in hell are they going to allow limits for individuals, who are actually real living persons.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denverbill (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:31 PM

3. I never understood why corporations

could spend whatever they wanted but people are limited. Seems if Mz Pip could contribute only $2500 then Exxon should have the same limits.

Right now corporations have more power than individuals. It would be nice if the court ruled that corporations should have the same limits as individuals but u don't see that happening.

Unlimited donations for whoever or whatever you are. That's sadly how I see this playing out.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mz Pip (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:00 PM

4. corporations can circumvent limits anyway because they can "breed" easier than humans.

want to limit exxonmobil corporation to $2,500 per campaign?

fine.

exxonmobil north sea exploration and production will contribute $2,500.
exxonmobil gulf sea exploration and production will contribute $2,500.
exxonmobil australia exploration and production will contribute $2,500.
exxonmobil whozeewhats oilcans, inc. will contribute $2,500.

you get the idea.



personally i think corporate contributions to political campaigns are ludicrous. the individual owners can already contribute, why should corporations get to contribute anything more, nevermind unlimited amounts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mz Pip (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 05:03 PM

5. more to the point, if mz pip is limited, why should mz pip, inc. be unlimited?

if you wanted to, you could create a corporation, invests vast sums, donate it all to your preferred politician, and hey, now you can sell your company's net operating losses for tax purposes to offset your contributions!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denverbill (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:35 AM

9. Corporate campaign contributions to candidates for federal office are illegal.

So I'm a little confused by your assertion that "corporations can give unlimited amounts", when in actual fact, corporations can give zero.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:11 PM

2. Could this be a good sign?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 08:53 PM

6. The pessimist in me sees this only getting worse

How I don't know. I just have a bad feeling about it. The five corporatist judges are going to somehow expand Citizens United to allow corporations to have even more control over our elections.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:44 PM

7. yup they lost the election and the vote rigging didnt seem to help so welcome to plan b

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:06 AM

8. Plan b? LOL

No, I think they are at least on plan h or i by now. I'm sure some of their other stunts we don't know about failed as well.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 04:00 AM

10. duplicate topic - locking

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink