All I wanna know is does this ruling help offset the damage done by big union and corporate campaign contributions?
Is this a good thing?
Common sense may yet survive.
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.
The Spice must flooooooooowwwwwww!!...........................
only thing am finding is from ruling from 2010 ...
Have found where the supreme court was scheduled to rehear the case. So could be as you say. 5-4 and ended. Still looking.
Thank You for the thread. Looks to be accurate. Ruling is approximately 45 minutes old.
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.
How can any campaign contribution not be a quid pro quo activity and thus not be corrupt?
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.
Good.
BTTT! 5-4 split
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.
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!
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.
Then... the government has no case against Dinesh D’Souza.
This’ll drive the progressives nuts.