Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits
Twitter ^ | 04-02-2014 | SCOTUSblog

Posted on 04/02/2014 7:17:50 AM PDT by PaulCruz2016

Breaking: scotus strikes down aggregate campaign contribution limits 5-4 per Chief Justice Roberts in McCutcheon case.

(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: campaign; campaigndonors; contributions; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

1 posted on 04/02/2014 7:17:50 AM PDT by PaulCruz2016
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

All I wanna know is does this ruling help offset the damage done by big union and corporate campaign contributions?


2 posted on 04/02/2014 7:19:48 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Is this a good thing?


3 posted on 04/02/2014 7:19:50 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Common sense may yet survive.


4 posted on 04/02/2014 7:19:53 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ( "Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

With very very few exceptions anything that removes limits from the people is a good thing.


5 posted on 04/02/2014 7:21:53 AM PDT by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

If I’m not mistaken this was a challenge to the Campaign Finance law of 2002 (John McCain’s baby). That limited maximum aggregate donation from an individual to $46,000 a campaign. A Republican businessman challenged that as a limit on his free speech, and apparently won. It will be interesting to see how far the ruling goes, and if it just threw out the $46,000 aggregate or the $2,000 limit to individual candidates as well.


6 posted on 04/02/2014 7:28:23 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

The Spice must flooooooooowwwwwww!!...........................


7 posted on 04/02/2014 7:30:13 AM PDT by Red Badger (LIberal is an oxymoron......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

only thing am finding is from ruling from 2010 ...


8 posted on 04/02/2014 7:31:02 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar

Sure makes sense to me.

To limit the amount a candidate can spend on his own campaign doesn’t seem legit—and if that’s the case, there shouldn’t be a limit to what one can contribute to other campaigns, either.


9 posted on 04/02/2014 7:31:37 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: apillar
Is this a good thing?

In response to case, a coalition of environmental, voting rights, labor, and government reform groups rallied outside of the Supreme Court. Environmentalists from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club protested what Phil Radford of Greenpeace called a “legalized system of corruption through money in politics” that had resulted in few major environmental laws passing in the U.S. since 1980.

If the leftist loons supported this law, and the Supreme Court threw it out on a 5-4 Conservative/Liberal break. I would say it was a really good thing for us. Expect to see liberal heads explode and the president give the Supreme Court another finger wagging lecture next State of the Union.

10 posted on 04/02/2014 7:34:14 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

Soros just opened his checkbook.


11 posted on 04/02/2014 7:34:57 AM PDT by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
To limit the amount a candidate can spend on his own campaign doesn’t seem legit—and if that’s the case, there shouldn’t be a limit to what one can contribute to other campaigns, either.

If this would have been in effect in 1996' Jack Kemp would have been President on Steve Forbes dime. Mr Forbes said he only ran because he couldn't give what he wanted to Jack....

12 posted on 04/02/2014 7:35:03 AM PDT by taildragger (The E-GOP won't know what hit them, The Party of Reagan is almost here, hang tight folks....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Have found where the supreme court was scheduled to rehear the case. So could be as you say. 5-4 and ended. Still looking.


13 posted on 04/02/2014 7:35:24 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeshugeMikey

With very very few exceptions anything that removes limits from the people is a good thing.


14 posted on 04/02/2014 7:35:27 AM PDT by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

Jack Kemp. Haven’t heard that name in awhile.

Wish we had a few more like him.


15 posted on 04/02/2014 7:37:04 AM PDT by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bidimus1

Labor Unions will now have to play on a even playing field. all to the good.


16 posted on 04/02/2014 7:37:11 AM PDT by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

McCain has truly been one of the worst senators of the last half century. He’s done far more harm than many liberals.


17 posted on 04/02/2014 7:38:16 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

*Make that ‘Democrat liberals’.


18 posted on 04/02/2014 7:38:39 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

I would rather he do that than what he does now: create numerous tax-exempt organizations that are difficult to tie to his name.

His name should be poison when associated with one of his commie candidates . . . maybe make it harder for McCain, Cantor and their ilk to be secretly funded by Soros.


19 posted on 04/02/2014 7:41:30 AM PDT by RatRipper (The political left are utterly evil and corrupt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/live_blog_of_opinions__April_2_2014


20 posted on 04/02/2014 7:42:03 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Thank You for the thread. Looks to be accurate. Ruling is approximately 45 minutes old.


21 posted on 04/02/2014 7:43:39 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bidimus1

The people are still limited to $2600, here the mighty in groups are unlimited.

IMO release the levels for all.


22 posted on 04/02/2014 7:45:09 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf


23 posted on 04/02/2014 7:45:33 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

HAHAHA.


24 posted on 04/02/2014 7:52:02 AM PDT by Stentor (Maybe the Goldman Sachs thing is just a coincidence. /S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

I think it is a good thing. Clarence Thomas did not think it went far enough - that ALL limits should be removed.


25 posted on 04/02/2014 7:57:24 AM PDT by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Unshackle the people and let us take this nation back!

But, I think every dime must be publicly listed, every quarter on the candidates campaign website.


26 posted on 04/02/2014 8:02:47 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

my thoughts too


27 posted on 04/02/2014 8:11:31 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

How can any campaign contribution not be a quid pro quo activity and thus not be corrupt?


28 posted on 04/02/2014 8:12:29 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Terrible decision. Why on Earth some conservatives think that giving the unbridled purchase of our Democracy, or our Republic, to a small group is utterly beyond me. What, you think they are in this for our values? If so, wake up.

The enemy of your enemy is just not always your friend. If you’ll notice, these are the people that want the Tea Party dead.

Be careful what you wish for.


29 posted on 04/02/2014 8:16:40 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

What, you think they are in this for our values? If so, wake up.

The enemy of your enemy is just not always your friend. If you’ll notice, these are the people that want the Tea Party dead.
...............
tough decision. who do support government unions who always throw money at unlimited government power or deep pocket fat cats whose interests are global and not really american.


30 posted on 04/02/2014 8:28:06 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad
“Soros just opened his checkbook.”

So what else is new? He's been doing that all along.

31 posted on 04/02/2014 8:38:42 AM PDT by MRadtke (Light a candle or curse the darkness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

All I wanna know is does this ruling help offset the damage done by big union and corporate campaign contributions?


It won’t, nor was it intended to.

When McCain- Feingold was passed, Democrats were at a money raising g disadvantage from big money donors.

Now the Democrats are totally dependent upon bog money donors sources for their fundraising, many of the sources foreign and hostile to the US, and so they have been pushing to remove the spending limits


32 posted on 04/02/2014 8:42:15 AM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RatRipper

. . . maybe make it harder for McCain, Cantor and their ilk to be secretly funded by Soros.

*****

BTTT!


33 posted on 04/02/2014 8:45:04 AM PDT by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Just thinking the same thing. The only thing this does is legalize the purchase of our government by those that intend to use it for their own benefit.

“Welcome to the USA, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of...”

Time to dream another dream. This dream is over.


34 posted on 04/02/2014 8:45:20 AM PDT by L,TOWM (No one in the US is free of the spirit of entitlement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Good.


35 posted on 04/02/2014 8:47:56 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (The PASSING LANE is for PASSING, not DAWDLING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

BTTT! 5-4 split


36 posted on 04/02/2014 8:50:25 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

From msn:

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court’s liberal and conservative justices. Roberts said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits.

The overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise ‘the most fundamental First Amendment activities,’” Roberts said, quoting from the court’s seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.


37 posted on 04/02/2014 8:52:11 AM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Yes, this is a good thing and shows where conservatives and the GOPe have common ground we can win and win and win. That’s how it’s done.

This changes the money game, big time.


38 posted on 04/02/2014 8:57:31 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

I’ll say this- I’m not well read on campaign finance law and such.
But if this p-sses off Justice Breyer and MoveOn and makes Justice Thomas happy then I’m probably all for it.

“The Roberts Court has weakened America’s democracy and contributed to a system of legalized bribery by allowing big money to swamp the voices of regular Americans and dramatically alter the outcome of elections,” she added in a written statement.”

That’s coming from Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org so I can assume this ruling is exactly the opposite of whatever she says.

“The Roberts Court has strengthened America’s democracy and disassembled a system of legalized bribery by disallowing big money to swamp the voices of regular Americans and dramatically alter the outcome of elections,” she added in a written statement.”

So, yay today’s ruling!


39 posted on 04/02/2014 8:59:26 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar
If it is McCain's baby it must be just as wicked as Rosemary's Baby....

'Nough said...

40 posted on 04/02/2014 9:04:05 AM PDT by topher (Traditional values -- especially family values -- which have been proven over time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

YES, this is a great ruling! The First Amendment means what it says!!


41 posted on 04/02/2014 9:07:10 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this insures that all of our bad choices of political candidates are those who are supported by the Elite....Who are all flaming socialists and liberals.


42 posted on 04/02/2014 9:09:00 AM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

You sound like a Liberal. How about the taxpayer money used to buy votes with welfare programs? How about the money it takes for the Liberal Media to endorse and support Liberal Democrat candidates and liberal policy? Free Speech costs money. Money is speech. Speech is money. PERIOD!


43 posted on 04/02/2014 9:11:31 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Money is speech, speech is money. Show me how it would be legal to limit the endorsements of the liberal media? And since we can’t do that, how do we fight the Liberal Media?

This is an EXCELLENT ruling and those who oppose it are the very definition of LIBERAL!


44 posted on 04/02/2014 9:13:15 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: apillar; All
... Campaign Finance law of 2002 ...

There's two prongs to this law imo. The first prong is that although the feds do have limited constitutional authority to make laws regulating elections, the Constitution's Clause 1 of Section 4 of Article I for example, I don't see where federal laws that limit campaign contributions are reasonably based on those powers. Can anybody enlighten me?

The other prong is that many campaign contributions are undoubtedly based on the perceived powers of the federal government as opposed to the constitutionally limited powers. More specifically, corrupt politicians are laughing all the way to the bank because they are likely promising constitutionally indefensible earmark spending to the low-information elite, wealthy contributors who were never taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.

In other words, unless a candidate for federal office is basing a promised earmark kickback on one of the clauses in Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, wealthy contributors are unknowingly contributing to the constitutionally indefensible abuse of Congress's limited powers.

45 posted on 04/02/2014 9:17:54 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
HE WHO CONTROLS THE SPICE CONTROLS THE UNIVERSE!!

(Did you catch Agents of SHIELD? Brad Dourif, the guy who play Piter De Vries was playing the decoy Clairvoyant.)
46 posted on 04/02/2014 9:19:16 AM PDT by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, STANDING WITH RAND.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

“Soros just opened his checkbook.”

Doesn’t matter. The only people falling for the “Koch brothers are evil” commercials are rabid liberals.


47 posted on 04/02/2014 9:22:35 AM PDT by Rebelbase (Tagline: optional, printed after your name on post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Then... the government has no case against Dinesh D’Souza.


48 posted on 04/02/2014 9:54:36 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Obama is so far in over his head, even his ears are beneath the water level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Somehow I don’t associate campaign contributions with “free speech,” or at least I do not equate the two. I would not donate to any candidate without expectation of a favor in return, namely that he/she acts and votes for legislation in accord with my personal convictions. The vote is the ultimate “campaign contribution.” Do we need to pay them to uphold and defend the Constitution? Let the candidates speak all they want to at no charge. I do not see much integrity inherent in receiving huge sums of ideological money. It reeks of bribery, not free speech.


49 posted on 04/02/2014 10:08:26 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

This’ll drive the progressives nuts.


50 posted on 04/02/2014 10:12:01 AM PDT by b4its2late (A Progressive is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson