Skip to main content

In a previous article on the implications of the Citizens United ruling, I made an error which was pointed out in comments.  However, the article did ask what would be the next Supreme Court rulings which would move us further into increasing money influence and harm to democracy.

The next major ruling hasn't occurred yet, but the Supreme Court has now said it will hear a case which could result in such a ruling.

The Court will consider a challenge to a legal limit on the amount of money an individual can contribute to federal election campaigns in a 2-year period.

A Feb. 20 NY Times editorial says, "If the justices were to overturn that decision, it would be the first time that the court has struck down a contribution limit as unconstitutional. That would eliminate an essential tool in combating the corrupting effects of money in politics."


"This latest case threatens to demolish even the modest control that government has over direct contributions."

Currently, the Federal Election Commission limits individuals to "$46,200 on contributions to candidates and their committees and $70,800 on contributions to other political committees" in a 2-year period.  Even the first and smaller of the two figures is about the median gross income for Americans.  The current contribution limits already allow the rich to contribute far above what would be feasible for an average American.  And this is above and beyond the unlimited expenditures the rich are now allowed to use through corporations and SuperPACs.

With a few exceptions, our politicians have been too under the sway of big money to even talk much about amending the constitution to prevent the unlimited expenditures allowed by the Citizens United ruling.  This case should be a wake-up call for anyone who was deluding themselves the process wouldn't lead to further court cases and rulings.  We can't afford to wait until the ruling on this case.  We need to put enormous pressure on elected officials to act.  We should make clear this is a "With Us" or "Against Us" issue when we go to vote. And we must build a movement independent of elected officials to organize whatever it takes to reverse the erosion of our democracy.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Adam B wrote an excellent diary on this topic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and you can find it here:

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 02:39:29 PM PST

  •  If the SCOTUS (0+ / 0-)

    overturns that law then I may just swear off voting forever. I'm already disgusted with the state of things since Citizens United and this would just be the straw that broke the camel's back.

    “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

    by bayushisan on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 06:16:29 PM PST

  •  If something like 90% would (0+ / 0-)

    oppose the anticipated decision, public opinion has not been informed about exclusive public funding and media access.  If the public aligns on public funding, it can get it, dealing with the Court en route. The proposed amendments do not envision democratic reform, but merely the inclusion of the middle class in existing corruption. The coming election funding and free speech revolution should leave us with a system that will be adequate to redirect the government from imperialism and corporate saturation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site