Move Over Citizens United

Political discussions
Post Reply
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69162
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Move Over Citizens United

Post by kalm »

Sure, I mean it's free speech right? Let's remove the red tape and make it so that United Health Care can just hand Obama the money (for instance). You "small government" crusaders should be 100% against this...but I'm guessing you won't be.

Que Ganny in 3...2...1.

:ohno:
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in a campaign finance case that could be even bigger than the last one, the infamous Citizens United case of 2010. The new case, McCutcheon vs. FEC, challenges the aggregate spending rules that limit any one campaign contributor to $123,000 in total spending to political candidates and election committees during any two-year federal election cycle.

The aggregate limit long has been a check on the flow of cold hard cash into the electoral system. As a three-judge panel of federal district court in Washington, D.C., observed last year, the per-candidate contribution limits in federal law -- including $2,500 per election to any given candidate, $30,800 per year to each political party -- would allow an individual to spread up to $3.5 million around. That's a lot of bunce. The $123,000 ceiling effectively limits that donor to backing no more than 18 individual candidates in any cycle, the D.C. court noted.

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has upheld the aggregate limit as a necessary check on "corruption" of the electoral process. In a key 1976 decision, the court defined corruption broadly and ruled that it was a sufficiently important purpose to justify the marginal restraint on free speech imposed by the limit.

The D.C. judges also noted that the aggregate limit also works as a check on attempts to evade the individual contribution limits. Without it, they wrote, an individual might write, say, a single half-million-dollar check to a party campaign committee that would be required to divvy it up so no one candidate receives more than his or her legal share. But following the money is hard, so there would be no way to know whether the funds weren't being illicitly combined.

"The candidate who knows the coordinated expenditure funding derives from that single large check at the joint fundraising event," the judges wrote, "will know precisely where to lay the wreath of gratitude."
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... 2805.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
GannonFan
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19233
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:51 am
I am a fan of: Delaware
A.K.A.: Non-Partisan Hack

Re: Move Over Citizens United

Post by GannonFan »

I don't get it kalm, if the 1976 ruling settled all of this, why have we had so much money continue to flow into politics in the intervening 35-40 years? It should be real easy to get money out of politics, right? I mean, McCain and that Feingold guy really came up with a locktight way to make sure we don't spend too much on politics (whatever that amount that is "correct" actually is) - how'd that work out?

I know you probably go home every night and throw on the episode of "Happy Days" when politics was so much easier and it just consisted of campaign rallies and the Fonz saying to vote for Eisenhower because "I (Fonzie) like Ike. My bike likes Ike. Heyyyyyy". Aw, the good old halcyon days of the '50's, I know you would love to just hop in your Delorean and go right back to those days. Unfortunately, even that was fiction.
Proud Member of the Blue Hen Nation
kalm
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 69162
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern
A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
Location: Northern Palouse

Re: Move Over Citizens United

Post by kalm »

GannonFan wrote:I don't get it kalm, if the 1976 ruling settled all of this, why have we had so much money continue to flow into politics in the intervening 35-40 years? It should be real easy to get money out of politics, right? I mean, McCain and that Feingold guy really came up with a locktight way to make sure we don't spend too much on politics (whatever that amount that is "correct" actually is) - how'd that work out?

I know you probably go home every night and throw on the episode of "Happy Days" when politics was so much easier and it just consisted of campaign rallies and the Fonz saying to vote for Eisenhower because "I (Fonzie) like Ike. My bike likes Ike. Heyyyyyy". Aw, the good old halcyon days of the '50's, I know you would love to just hop in your Delorean and go right back to those days. Unfortunately, even that was fiction.
As I said.

'We just can't figure out how govt got so big...why congress says one thing but votes another...why don't they represent our interests instead of special interests????

Too bad we're stuck with the status quo...nothing can be done I guess. :coffee:
Image
Image
Image
Post Reply