Posted on 04/02/2014 9:51:37 AM PDT by jazusamo
Until this morning, the federal government could limit the amount of money you contribute for political speech. Today in McCutcheon vs. FEC, the Supreme Court invalidated overall contribution limits. The federal government limited individual campaign contributions to $48,000 overall and $123,200 to everything (PACs, candidates, national parties) each cycle.
The Supreme Court struck down the limits, holding that the government’s justification for limiting free speech rights – to keep money out of politics and the avoid the appearance of impropriety – failed.
This decision cuts at the heart of the leftist narrative on free speech attacks. The heart of the narrative on the left (and among a smattering of GOP Senators) is that money in politics is bad and that large financial contributions create the appearance of corruption.
The Court rejected these justifications squarely.
Significant First Amendment interests are implicated here. Contributing money to a candidate is an exercise of an individual’s right to participate in the electoral process through both political expression and political association. A restriction on how many candidates and committees an individual may support is hardly a “modest restraint” on those rights. The Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.
One of the most interesting aspects of the case is the role of lawyer Dan Backer. Backer is the driving force behind the decision. He went out and sought plaintiffs who could help strike down this law. Backer represents an activist breed of conservative lawyer who borrows the tactics of offense from the left and seeks to alter the legal landscape and the future of the nation. He was featured in USA Today last month.
USA Today text deleted due to copyright request, click above.
In a profession dominated by the risk adverse, Backer’s tactic of eternal offense stands out. Today, he gets to bask in the glow of enormous success.
The left is already apoplectic about the decision today and are sending email blasts to conjure up a mob. From a Moveon.org email that just went out:
We can’t vote Supreme Court justices out of office—but we can definitely make sure that they—and the media and politicians watching—know the people’s opinion in this case. That’s why MoveOn members are showing up TODAY with other progressives and allies at more than a 150 Rapid Response Rallies nationwide in reaction to the Supreme Court’s flawed decision.
Can you join in at an event near Washington?
Bold lettering mine.
Another 5/4 split. This is why it’s important to take the presidency and the Senate. The make-up of the court has a longer term and more insidious impact on our liberty than the presidency.
Money is a form of free expression especially about politics and government which is what First Amendment free speech is mainly targeting.
OH-OH, Obamas going to have to scold them again, and right after his big ‘health care’ victory too.
Dems will claim this is why they lose seats in November, ‘The filthy rich and the corps bought the election’
Amen...Should 0bama have the opportunity to replace one or more conservative justice it’ll be a disaster.
i’d’also say term limitation scotus justices - and a removal mechanism for those that are legislating from the bench, bad conduct, etc.
it can’t be lifetime apointments. not for continued heinous unconstitutional justices. to say the court isn’t political is laughable. it’s all about politics. term limits make sense. removal processes make’sense. they are not above it all. kagan and sotomayor prove it, kagan ruling on cases she argued in front of scotus for the administration. not having the honmor to step aside for obvious conflicts of interest and established personal bias.
0bama may wind up blaming it on the attorney in the article, Dan Backer. :)
By line: Harry Reid’s head explodes.
“The Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”
Bingo and this one never goes in our direction.
“That’s why MoveOn members are showing up TODAY with other progressives and allies at more than a 150 Rapid Response Rallies nationwide...”
Because if you can get your lazy, sorry arse up by the crack of noon and wipe off the cheetos dust and hide the bong from your mom in her basement, making it to a RRR is on your list of things to do while the rest of us are at WORK.
HAHAHA, rapid response rally...to do what, stand around in circle and bang on a drum for couple of hours before you get tired and have head on back to mom’s basement. We all remember these burn-outs from high school, not going anywhere, not doing anything, and will never amount to anything. Yeah, go to your circle fest...
Good luck with getting a constitutional amendment passed to rewrite the First Amendment.
For the ping list.
Last paragraph in the excerpt is key. MoveOn and other Leftist groups are using this as a live run of their organizing and turnout ability.
They’re trying to present the appearance of a spontaneous and massive groundswell of opposition to this and in favor of them and other Leftist causes.
Conservatives have nowhere near this capability.
Yep, they’ll also be poking holes in the sky with their fingers. lol
ping!
Does this decision mean we are living in a Backertopia? Oh wait, we are living in Kochtopia. Sorry, I get my topias confused.
Perhaps my understanding of this is incorrect, but doesn’t lifting the limits work against Conservatives as well? Consider all the foreign contributions this administration received from ‘Mickey Mouse identities’ in the West Bank.
Well foreign contributions are illegal but of course that doesn’t stop the Rats from accepting them.
One of the most interesting aspects of the case is the role of lawyer Dan Backer. Backer is the driving force behind the decision. He went out and sought plaintiffs who could help strike down this law. Backer represents an activist breed of conservative lawyer who borrows the tactics of offense from the left and seeks to alter the legal landscape and the future of the nation. He was featured in USA Today last month.
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.