High court voids overall campaign contribution limits

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Fox News: Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled Wednesday that limits on the total amount of money individuals can give to candidates, political parties and political action committees are unconstitutional.

The ruling removes the cap on contributions, which was set at $123,200 for 2014, but does not change limits on individual contributions for president or Congress, currently set at $2,600 per election.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause – it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opinion.”

The Marxist left immediately denounced the decision, making all sorts of stupid and outrageous allegations, such as "the Roberts court has eviscerated the nation's campaign finance laws" -- that from Justice Breyer -- and that it has "weakened American democracy" and "contributed a system of legalized bribery ."

Yeah, putting the campaign into the power of the electorate is something the Marxists despise -- and they will be the first to take advantage of the new rules.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You, I and everyone on this BB and all American voters, except for the extremely rich, have just been marginalized to a meaningless roll in federal political campaigns. This is a tragic day in the history of the USA.

:tear:

 

[Revmitchell]

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades – despite the profound offense such spectacles cause – it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opinion.”

There ya go! :thumbs:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

:tear:

Oh, cry me a river! You think your party isn't happy about this ruling too? Your overly emotional sentiments are belied by Harry Reid rubbing his palms together and licking his chops.

In reality, you're both angry because you know the Republican contributors can bury you in fundraising.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Oh, cry me a river! You think your party isn't happy about this ruling too? Your overly emotional sentiments are belied by Harry Reid rubbing his palms together and licking his chops.

You miss the point entirely. You and I are of absolutely no interest to either party. It is the money people and corporations both parties are interested in and it is the rich and the corporations who they will cater to and do as the, the rich and the corporations, want. You and I are completely insignificant when it comes to who will run and what they will ultimately do when elected. In essence, you and I and the average American now count for nothing.

In reality, you're both angry because you know the Republican contributors can bury you in fundraising.

Who raises the most or least is not part of my objection to this decision. This activist court has negated the importance of the average person in who is nominated and how their campaigns are run. This is a complete victory for the rich, the special interest groups and corporations. It is a complete loss for the average voter. A most sad day in our history. We are doomed to the desires of the special interest, the rich and to corporations.

 

[plain_n_simple]

So basically, the railroad and cattlemen have bought an agreeable sheriff, then they legally take the townsfolk's property as needed, and then turnaround and sell the townsfolk train rides and hamburgers?

 

[Don]

Please. Only those who had the money and the backing were able to run before the Supremes made this decision. It's not a good decision, and exacerbates what was already happening.

As PnS pointed out, it could make the situation worse, and townspeople are notorious for running those guys out of town...which kind of leads to the question, is someone *trying* to orchestrate a civil war?

 

[Salty]

...Who raises the most or least is not part of my objection to this decision. This activist court has negated the importance of the average person in who is nominated and how their campaigns are run. This is a complete victory for the rich, the special interest groups and corporations. It is a complete loss for the average voter. A most sad day in our history. We are doomed to the desires of the special interest, the rich and to corporations.

A good part of the money raised is for TV and radio advertising. If people will be swayed by a cute jingle or one-liner - then shame on us.
I want to hear the actual plaform of the candidates - no hold bars.

One other thing - the two names listed in the qutoe by Bernie Sanders are both Republicians - is he not worried about the large donations given by liberals?

My goodness look at who benefits the most from large donations:

 

[Crabtownboy]

A good part of the money raised is for TV and radio advertising. If people will be swayed by a cute jingle or one-liner - then shame on us.
I want to hear the actual plaform of the candidates - no hold bars.

Obviously it works or that money would be spent elsewhere. Also, if you are not rich yourself or if you are not willing to sell your soul to the rich, the special interest groups or corporations you will never be a serious contender in a campaign ... and probably will never be in one because of the lack of money.

One other thing - the two names listed in the qutoe by Bernie Sanders are both Republicians - is he not worried about the large donations given by liberals?

He should be as should you and I and all us regular voters.

I believe those on the BB who think this is a great decision just do not realize they have been neutered by the SC.

 

[Don]

I believe those on the BB who think this is a great decision just do not realize they have been neutered by the SC.

Your problem is that you don't realize that we were already neutered. You think Barack overcame a $30,000/year job to become president? You think Harry Reid went from being a McDonald's worker to a Democratic senator?

You're too much of an idealist, CTB. You prefer to believe in the illusion rather than face, much less admit, the reality.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

All this does is legitimise the corporate ownership of the republicrats

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

All this does is legitimise the corporate ownership of the republicrats

You miss the point entirely. You and I are of absolutely no interest to either party.

Sorry, but I disagree. And this ...

It is the money people and corporations both parties are interested in and it is the rich and the corporations who they will cater to and do as the, the rich and the corporations, want.

... reveals your utter failure to grasp the meaning of yesterday's ruling. This opens the door back up for individual participation. Get it? It increase the amount the individual can give to political campaigns. The main reason the parties turned to corporate funding -- which remains limited -- is because the individual contribution was rendered impotent by the original limits. This ruling removes them Please, both of you, get a clue!

Now, feel free to whine, moan and complain about how it won't make any difference. But the reality is, it only fails to make a difference if people with your negative attitude don't participate.

 

[Crabtownboy]

All this does is legitimise the corporate ownership of the republicrats

You are quite correct. Perhaps there is hope for us little folk there. I've been doing more thinking and reading. Perhaps this has successfully painted the GOP as the party of the rich, the corporations and the special interest. That picture certainly was a disadvantage for Romney. It may well be that because we little folk still have the vote that this will come back to bite the hind quarters of the Oligarchy Party, the GOP.

The GOP’s increased reliance on big donors also makes it less likely the party will craft new policies that appeal to the blue-collar voters it needs to win. For years, the smartest conservative intellectuals—from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam to David Frum to David Brooks—have been imploring the GOP to realize that it’s not 1980 anymore. Government power over the economy has declined; economic insecurity has grown. In this new world, Republicans can’t simply promise to get government out of the way. They need to suggest ways government can help people get ahead. And just as Bill Clinton showed in the early 1990s that he was not beholden to the cultural left, Republicans must find ways to show they are not beholden to the oligarchic right. That’s going to be harder now.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...me-back-to-haunt-the-republican-party/360063/

 

[Crabtownboy]

Sorry, but I disagree. And this ... ... reveals your utter failure to grasp the meaning of yesterday's ruling. This opens the door back up for individual participation. Get it? It increase the amount the individual can give to political campaigns. The main reason the parties turned to corporate funding -- which remains limited -- is because the individual contribution was rendered impotent by the original limits. This ruling removes them Please, both of you, get a clue!

Unless you are much richer than I and most people on the board your point is mute ... unless we all band together and give our $100 or $200 to one candidate to offset those bought by the rich. Actually to a great degree this is what happened in the last election. Most of Romney's money came from the rich and special interest. At least half of Obama's came from individuals. We see who won.

Now, feel free to whine, moan and complain about how it won't make any difference. But the reality is, it only fails to make a difference if people with your negative attitude don't participate.

I am beginning to see some light at the end of this dark tunnel. There is hope and it is in the American people, not in the rich or in the special interest groups. Part of the reason Romney went down in flames was his arrogance for the people and his catering to the rich and special interest.

 

[Crabtownboy]

A political party that becomes viewed as the plaything for America's super-rich is a party in danger of being viewed as hostile to the non-super-rich and these are the majority of voters. Money counts, but in the long-run it is votes that count more.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No matter how we lean we all know that the lawmakers (and executers) are no more than employees of the major corporations. They spend most of their time doing the will of their employers, and their employers are not us.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

No matter how we lean we all know that the lawmakers (and executers) are no more than employees of the major corporations.

We all "know" this? Really? When was that knowledge inserted in my brain? I must have missed that. ::: sacking around in my brain looking for said knowledge ::: Nope, not there. Wonder what happened to it? [/sarcasm]

You've been reading too much of Poncho's drivel.

The truth is, they have become addicted to power, and even the corporations can't control them anymore, because the corporations often want actions taken that will cause them to lose that power. Additionally, the influence of the corporations is limited to their ability to match their wants with the opinions of the individual Congressmen-and-women's constituents -- or at least make it appear those wants match those desires.

The ruling tertiarily places the power back in the hands of the electorate by not limiting their ability to contribute to the hoped-for success of that candidate. I say "tertiarily" because until the electorate shows a willingness to return to individual participation in government via contributions and other input, the effect of this ruling will be a third-tier influence. With the negative attitudes I see on this board daily, assuming they represent most of the electorate, I hold little hope for it to be meaningful at all.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You, I and everyone on this BB and all American voters, except for the extremely rich, have just been marginalized to a meaningless roll in federal political campaigns. This is a tragic day in the history of the USA.

:tear:

Actually, I'm quite happy with the ruling. Any lover of freedom would be.

 

[Salty]

...One other thing - the two names listed in the qutoe by Bernie Sanders are both Republicians - is he not worried about the large donations given by liberals ...

...He should be as should you and I and all us regular voters. ...

Then why didnt he list a Dem as well?

His statement was totally politically motivated - to misinform voters.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Then why didnt he list a Dem as well?

His statement was totally politically motivated - to misinform voters.

Maybe, maybe not. The GOP seems much more dependent on the super-rich than the Democratic Party. As I said, this perception hurt Romney. His arrogant 47 percent statement added to this perception and cost him as well. A party pictured as captive of the super-rich and special interest will find tough sledding in national elections.