Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After the weirdly unconstitutional rulings in Kelo and the Obamacare decision, this is finally a breath of fresh air.
Liberals are in a paroxysm of rage over this one. Letting conservatives say whatever they want, as much as they want, does more harm to the leftist agenda than anything else possibly could. Leftist Stephen Breyer even stopped court proceedings to read a protest aloud from the bench.
When liberals get that steamed, you know you've done something right.
Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions
Published April 02, 2014
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.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the dissenting side, took the unusual step of reading a summary of his opinion from the bench and said the “decision eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws.”
[Yes, Mr. Breyer, that's exactly what it does. And your point was...?? -ed.]
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
Do you even understand what the ruling was and what is was about?
Yes. But the wants of whoever is donating the limit of $2600 is probably to be catered to more than the person who donated like only $20. Of course, conservatives will say, "There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The wheel that squeals the most should get the most grease."
Liberals say this, conservatives do that...liberals do this, conservatives say that-IT DOESN'T MATTER!
People and Corporations that donate absurd amounts of money to politicians donate to both sides of the aisle and play all hands. This miniscule fraction of the population controls our Government. It is only YOU partisan idiots that argue amongst yourselves and keep the charade alive that we have a functioning democracy. Wake up and stop blindly defending people because you think they are on your "team".
This was a proper ruling all the way around, and doesn't make the election process more corrupt, just more open to the 1st Amendment.
Why was campaign finance reform ever an issue, then?
Wasn't the issue that wealthy individuals and well-financed lobby groups, because of their wealth, had an enhanced ability to influence election outcomes? If money corrupts the election process, then any ruling that allows an individual to pour more money into an election cycle gives that individual more ability to influence election outcomes, thus corrupting the process.
While I understand the ruling and its basis in free speech, how long before we have a challenge to the individual donation cap? And if limiting spending during the election cycle is an abridgement of a person's free speech rights, then how can limiting the amount an individual donates to a specific candidate not be an abridgement of a person's free speech rights? Consistency in the law is fundamental, and the problems that this Court started with it's United decision just keep on growing.
Looks like the liberal fanatics are maintaining their 0-for-everything record of failure in trying to predict what conservatives will say.
Sorry, but if I was running for city council in my town, I believe I would pay a lot more attention to the wants of an individual or organization who donated the legal state limit to my campaign, which is $5000. If if was running for city council, though, I think I would impose my own considerably less noticeable limit, like, say, $250.
If someone wants to donate money for a campaign they should not be limited.
So if someone donates $50,000 to your political campaign and you win, should you reward that donor any government position he wants, even if he's poorly qualified or not experienced for it?
Decisions like this make it harder to vote for a decent candidate or one that was bought and paid for.
I don't think it possible to become elected without being" bought and paid for".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
