Supreme Court tosses aggregate donation limits

[Holmes]

Ugh.  I hate it when I agree with krazen about something.

Consider re-evaluating your life choices.

[bedstuy]

Well, if you buy into the idea that contribution limits are entirely based on corruption, aggregate limits don't make much sense.  The underlying logic of the Supreme Court is wrong in my opinion, but it's consistent and it's not necessarily political or pushing a Republican agenda. 

[Simfan34]

I mean, direct donations are surely preferable to third parties, no? This is going to undercut the SuperPACs- which would be a plus.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I mean, direct donations are surely preferable to third parties, no? This is going to undercut the SuperPACs- which would be a plus.

Direct donations or third parties, either way, it is still legalized bribery.

[bullmoose88]

Nearly all citizens over the age of 18 can vote. Why is it necessary to silence some of the people with money, while media corporations do virtually whatever they want (including FoxNews)?

Only liberals with an unreasonably grim view of humanity can despair over something so small.

I fail to see how aggregate limits that the average person has no chance of coming near in terms of donations is in any way silencing folks with money.  Perhaps turning the volume down from 15 to 14 but not to the quiet single digits at best of average joes or gasp like turning their speaker off.  Enlighten me.

[SteveRogers]

Just finished reading the opinion. While I may dislike the policy implications, I don't know that I can honestly say it was the wrong decision.

I mean, direct donations are surely preferable to third parties, no? This is going to undercut the SuperPACs- which would be a plus.

Direct donations or third parties, either way, it is still legalized bribery.

But the thing is, the base limits are still intact. You can only give $5200 to a candidate each election cycle. If giving $5200 to each of nine candidates doesn't count as bribing any of them, then who is now bribed when you give another $5200 to a tenth candidate.

I don't see this decision by itself having that huge of an impact on the elections. It's certainly not in the same ballpark as Citizens United. This decision has nothing to do with the Super PACs that have become the real problem.

Also, as usual, LOL at Thomas's concurrence. Even when the man wins, he never feels like he's won hard enough.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Thanks a lot to all Senate "Democrats" who failed to filibuster Alito.

Here is the hall of shame among Senate "Democrats" still serving.
Pryor
Carper
Landrieu
Johnson (even voted for him!)
Cantwell
Rockefeller

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The final and complete American plutocracy, brought to you by Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush's appointed judges. Now it's just a matter of time before the American people realize what party is responsible for letting the rich ruin this country and do something about it.

Both parties are run by authoritarian neoliberal warmongers, regardless of their disagreements. I don't know you yet but I hope I can pull you a bit further left, comrade.

[krazen1211]

Excellent news!

Krazen: The Salem years

Krazen: "Innocent women were executed in Massachusetts after they were accused of being witches?  Excellent news!  Now they won't have any more children whose descendants might vote for a Democrat in 2014."

You break it, you buy it.


In capturing the presidency, Obama, 47, became the first major-party nominee to reject federal funding for the general election. He spent $740.6 million, eclipsing the combined $646.7 million that Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry spent four years earlier.


McCain spent $227.7 million; among Republicans, that was second only to Bush’s $269.4 million in 2004.

[krazen1211]

Nearly all citizens over the age of 18 can vote. Why is it necessary to silence some of the people with money, while media corporations do virtually whatever they want (including FoxNews)?

Only liberals with an unreasonably grim view of humanity can despair over something so small.

Of course, it is not, especially when incumbent politicians can go around babbling on the taxpayer's dime.

This decision furthers the revolution.

[hawkeye59]

Just finished reading the opinion. While I may dislike the policy implications, I don't know that I can honestly say it was the wrong decision.

I mean, direct donations are surely preferable to third parties, no? This is going to undercut the SuperPACs- which would be a plus.

Direct donations or third parties, either way, it is still legalized bribery.

But the thing is, the base limits are still intact. You can only give $5200 to a candidate each election cycle. If giving $5200 to each of nine candidates doesn't count as bribing any of them, then who is now bribed when you give another $5200 to a tenth candidate.

I don't see this decision by itself having that huge of an impact on the elections. It's certainly not in the same ballpark as Citizens United. This decision has nothing to do with the Super PACs that have become the real problem.

Also, as usual, LOL at Thomas's concurrence. Even when the man wins, he never feels like he's won hard enough.

[Holmes]

Excellent news!

Krazen: The Salem years

Krazen: "Innocent women were executed in Massachusetts after they were accused of being witches?  Excellent news!  Now they won't have any more children whose descendants might vote for a Democrat in 2014."

You break it, you buy it.


In capturing the presidency, Obama, 47, became the first major-party nominee to reject federal funding for the general election. He spent $740.6 million, eclipsing the combined $646.7 million that Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry spent four years earlier.


McCain spent $227.7 million; among Republicans, that was second only to Bush’s $269.4 million in 2004.

This has nothing to do with limits on total individual campaign donations. All you're proving is that your loser candidate wasn't able to raise as much money as the winner was able to because he was a loser.

[free my dawg]

Impeach them for treason.

[krazen1211]

Excellent news!

Krazen: The Salem years

Krazen: "Innocent women were executed in Massachusetts after they were accused of being witches?  Excellent news!  Now they won't have any more children whose descendants might vote for a Democrat in 2014."

You break it, you buy it.


In capturing the presidency, Obama, 47, became the first major-party nominee to reject federal funding for the general election. He spent $740.6 million, eclipsing the combined $646.7 million that Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry spent four years earlier.


McCain spent $227.7 million; among Republicans, that was second only to Bush’s $269.4 million in 2004.

This has nothing to do with limits on total individual campaign donations. All you're proving is that your loser candidate wasn't able to raise as much money as the winner was able to because he was a loser.

Not just him. Hillary got thrashed too. A good and proper Super PAC would have leveled the field. With any luck, the limits you speak of will vanish soon.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Impeach them for treason.

Also this!

[AggregateDemand]

Because it should be one person, one vote, and the same amount of free speech for everyone. The rich should not be able to have more free speech than the poor.

The common citizen has more free speech, communications, and media space than any time in history. We are not powerless sheeple, and we are not easily herded around.

We need to stop despairing as if we were just pea-brained plains-grazing prey animals.

[MaxQue]

Because it should be one person, one vote, and the same amount of free speech for everyone. The rich should not be able to have more free speech than the poor.

The common citizen has more free speech, communications, and media space than any time in history. We are not powerless sheeple, and we are not easily herded around.

We need to stop despairing as if we were just pea-brained plains-grazing prey animals.

The common citizen doesn't have the financial means to buy media space.

[fivex]

Impeach them all.

[muon2]

Because it should be one person, one vote, and the same amount of free speech for everyone. The rich should not be able to have more free speech than the poor.

The common citizen has more free speech, communications, and media space than any time in history. We are not powerless sheeple, and we are not easily herded around.

We need to stop despairing as if we were just pea-brained plains-grazing prey animals.

The common citizen doesn't have the financial means to buy media space.

At the time of Buckley v Valeo in the 1970's the common citizen had zero means to get media access. There were three broadcast networks with a daily half hour for national news. Commercial time was at a premium given the limited number of outlets. It was easy to reach a few media outlets to quash an unpopular view. The best most common citizens could do is purchase a print ad in the local weekly newspaper with a circulation of a few thousand. This was the state of access at the time many seem to long for based on their desire to roll the clock back on SCOTUS decisions affecting political speech.

Today is radically better in so many ways. The existence of the internet provides a media platform unimagined except in science fiction. The ability to put together a popular YouTube video or viral tweet gives the common citizen access to media that can reach millions in seconds. Suppression of ideas is nearly impossible - just ask the Chinese how many resources it takes to block dissent. Google ads are relatively cheap compared to 20th century media and can target a narrow or broad audience. Even cable ads give reach for political speech for those of some financial means without requiring a million dollar investment.

[Ogre Mage]

Breyer read his dissent from the bench (only done when a Justice is really upset).  Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan all signed onto it, showing they are speaking with one voice.  This is similar to what the four members of the Court's liberal bloc did in Gonzales v. Carhart, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and the Seattle-Louisville school integration and VRA cases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More highlights from Breyer's dissent can be read here --

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/04/02/highlights-from-justice-breyers-mccutcheon-dissent/

[H. Ross Peron]

With this, the Fort Hood shooting, and the huge earthquake in Chile it feels like 8th grade all over again...

[Antonio the Sixth]

I hope the people who signed on these opinions leave the court as soon as possible (ie before 2016).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Ugh.  I hate it when I agree with krazen about something.

Personal attack!!!!!!!!!

[Randy Bobandy]

I hope the people who signed on these opinions leave the court as soon as possible (ie before 2016).

[Mordecai]

My sense of the issue is that our campaign finance rules are so broken anyway that this doesn't matter much. Feel free to correct me if there really is a reason to believe that the situation can get significantly worse than it already is.

At least there's no need to tip-toe around the issue anymore. It's now all out in the open for everyone to see.