Alarmism, or Citizen's United aint seen nothin' yet?

Farm Boy

run boy run
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
26,565
Actually, it's about 2 paragraphs, in hindsight, I shouldn't have made a thread without more info, it's a breaking news sort of thing that the SCOTUS has just struck down standing limitations on political donations as a violation of free speech.
(CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down current limits on the total amount individual donors can make to political campaigns.

At issue is whether those regulations in the Federal Election Campaign Act violate the First Amendment rights of contributors.

The 5-4 ruling could have an immediate impact on November's congressional midterm elections, and add another layer of high-stakes spending in the crowded political arena.

Ok, new:
Washington (CNN) - In another blow to federal election laws, the Supreme Court on Wednesday eliminated limits on the total amount people can donate to various political campaigns in a single election season. However, the court left intact the current $5,200 limit on how much an individual can give to any single candidate.

Tempest in a teapot given the current Citizen's United environment? Or ground-breaking new encroachment of big-money=big-voice in American election seasons?
 
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down current limits on the total amount individual donors can make to political campaigns.

At issue is whether those regulations in the Federal Election Campaign Act violate the First Amendment rights of contributors.

What's more important, upholding the constitution, or trying to work for a better society and a better America?

Obviously putting more money into politics is not going to benefit anyone other than people with money. Maybe your constitution needs an amendment if it's leading to stupid decisions like this being made.
 
What's more important, upholding the constitution, or trying to work for a better society and a better America?

Obviously putting more money into politics is not going to benefit anyone other than people with money. Maybe your constitution needs an amendment if it's leading to stupid decisions like this being made.

Not sure that's realistically possible without wartime-esque rage(which probably wouldn't outlast the timeframe required) given who the opponents of such an amendment would be, the access to political speech those entities possess, and the overwhelming majority of processes the amendment would have to win given the structure of the procedure.
 
I honestly don't understand how money = speech. Money doens't equal speech, it equals access to speech. And it's not spread equally, so to me it money should be prevented from being equated as speech. If it were spread equally then I'd have no problem with it.

For that matter, I don't think corporations should be allowed to have political speech in the first place.
 
Unlimited contributions doesn't equate to free speech, it equates to giving those who have money the right to drown out everyone else's free speech.

Your supreme court is near-sighted and perspective and intelligence have a restraining order on it.
 
Money already rules politics. This makes it incrementally worse. As will the inevitable next decision ending corporate limits on contributions. (This ended individual caps.)

The only relevant question is how much worse?
 
We have to make a choice between bread and circuses on the one hand or peace through strength.
 
Heheh. Give me the populists in your misrepresented false dichotomy. I'm not even going to put qualifications in that statement.
 
This new decision + Citizens United is here to stay. People keep complaining about money in politics, but there is no real way you can expect that to change any-time soon. If you want fairer politics you have to target things that people care about less, that would make a difference still in spite of money. Things like Seniority, Cloakrooms, etc. all need to come back - and would take less political capital than dealing with issues revolving around Campaign Finance.
 
I personally think this is good news. Less secrecy, much easier to pin dirty money on the politicians. Might even lead to real reform sooner.
 
I honestly don't understand how money = speech. Money doens't equal speech, it equals access to speech. And it's not spread equally, so to me it money should be prevented from being equated as speech. If it were spread equally then I'd have no problem with it.

For that matter, I don't think corporations should be allowed to have political speech in the first place.

Agreed, Ive never understood the argument that giving money is the same thing as free speech. There is a long standing acceptance that you cannot bribe public officials, your free speech doesnt protect that, but to the supreme court my right to backdoor bribe by donating it to their campaign is my right as free speech. The supreme court is a joke, the corruption which was already inherent to the system continues to just get worse with each idiotic campaign finance decision they make.
 
These cases basically legalize and codify outright bribery--although I like Hygro's scenario where people are so reviled they rush to outlaw it.
 
These cases basically legalize and codify outright bribery--although I like Hygro's scenario where people are so reviled they rush to outlaw it.

It cant be outlawed though, that's the whole problem with this coming from the supreme court. it would take a constitutional amendment which would have to get voted through in a political system that is viciously dirty. Only viable away this gets fixed is a smarter supreme court in the future.
 
It is unfortunate that the Courts seem to want to protect the rights to buy a candidate more than the rights to vote for one.
 
Too much inefficiency had been introduced in the candidate-selling process by the regulatory requirement of money-enfranchisement (I was trying to think of a term like money-laundering) being funneled through PACs.
 
I don't see how it exposes corruption. Direct contribution limits are still in place, it just removes the annual cap each donor had on their own money. So Sheldon Alderson can give everyone in the Republican Party the max contribution if he wants, rather than the smaller amount he was limited to previously. But he could still directly contribute to individual candidates before this, just not as many.

If it was not a big deal when people gave individual donations (which they have always done) I don't see them being scared away by fear of public scorn for just "spreading the wealth" even more.
 
You do not even need money to influence legislation. The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench on campaign finance on a regular basis the last several years without receiving a single donation.
 
Admittedly I didn't read the ruling, illram :p


And on second thought, the great thing about super PACs is that many of them suck and a lot of them are at least de facto money making scams. It would be like if the Sheriff in Robin Hood was robbing only the prince but keeping it for himself.
 
Top Bottom