Skip to main content

Well, if you want to know when all the rules came off in regards to how elections were run, it may have started with Citizens United, but it caps off today.

http://www.businessinsider.com/...

The Supreme Court struck down caps that individuals can make to candidates or political parties during a two-year election cycle, in an opinion Wednesday by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, marks the most consequential campaign finance ruling from the high court since the landmark Citizens United decision in 2010.

In the majority opinion of the court by Roberts, the court ruled that the limits violate the First Amendment. The "aggregate limits do not further the permissible governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance," the majority opinion read.

Shaun McCutcheon, the lead plaintiff in the case, challenged the limit on donations individuals can give to candidates and political organizations, saying it limited his First Amendment rights. It challenged section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which provides a biennial aggregate limit on the amount individuals can donate.

Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by the court's other conservative-leaning justices — Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia. Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's other conservative, concurred with the majority opinion but wrote a separate opinion arguing the court should have gone further.

And now, we become a country where infinite direct giving is going to dominate election cycles.  

Huzzah for the Plutocrats!

http://www.nbcnews.com/...

Today's decision left intact the cap of $2,600 per election that a contributor to give to any single candidate for federal office, but it invalidated the separate limit on how much can be contributed to all federal candidates put together — $48,600.
Under the aggregate limits, an individual could donate a maximum of $48,600 to all candidates for federal office plus another $74,600 to national political parties, state and local political parties, and political action committees — a grand contribution total of $123,200 per election.
In the end, the second part is important, because now unlimited direct giving to a party (not a specific candidate) is now allowable, and direct giving of unlimited amounts to combined candidates allows certain individuals to shore up numerous races directly or indirectly with absolutely no limits at all.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Tip Jar (20+ / 0-)

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:29:24 AM PDT

  •  Limits on contributions to individual candidates (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmservo433, Sister Havana, jfromga

    still stand.

    Decision was widely expected.  As $ trumps all for the activist 5.

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:32:15 AM PDT

    •  Was editting (0+ / 0-)

      To reflect exactly this.   Sorry about that.  :)

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:32:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a monumental American tragedy. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skyye

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:49:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a throwback to the Lochner era (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobswern, Musial

        With the court using an amendment as a cudgel to strike down essentially economic regulations.  Restraining the ability of the rich and powerful to do what they want.  I think these decisions will be overturned at some point.

        "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

        by Paleo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 08:01:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes...but, erasing the damage that'll be done... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flash123

          ...in the interim, as a byproduct of this judicial travesty in libertarian/unbridled capitalism could, literally, destroy this country before we're enabled to "take it back."

          (In fact, many could easily argue that these objectives have already been accomplished!)

          How does one "take back" irreversible climate change?

          How does one "take back" war (A military-industrial and corporate complex that's enabled to become even more powerful than it is now)?

          How does one "take back" the ongoing pillaging of our society to the point of no return?

          (These matters were/are already out of hand, as in: now, before this deplorable court decision?)

          You're talking about taking back something when the very ability to take ANYTHING "back" (i.e. in our so-called "democracy") is trumped by a court decision such as this.

          This is NOT an understatement.

          The volume has been pumped-up to the max on the (already overwhelming) free-for-all cash grab by our elected officials of BOTH parties.

          This is a true tragedy of epic proportions (and even more epic consequences, to be realized), IMHO.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 08:23:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The problem is- (0+ / 0-)

            -that we have some check on the other two branches of government but none at all on those bozos in the Supreme Court.  We need to correct that immediately or we'll become slaves to a bunch of lawyers with political agendas.
            As long as the American public fail to see that lawyers are behind most of our problems this bastardization of our democratic Republic will continue unabated.  Get lawyers out of government!  
            How many are aware that there's no requirement that members of the Supreme Court be lawyers?  Wake up America!!!
            Lawyers are in every key area of our government and they get to decide just about everything without further review by the people or accountability of any sort.
            Holder gets to decide who he will prosecute, NOT the evidence presented against the criminal, as in Wall Street bankers; lawyers get to 'decide' that the president's killing of American citizens is "legal" when it's clearly against the Constitution,, and torture, and arrests without warrants, and incarceration without trial,  and the show goes on......
            You want to know what's wrong with this nation?  IT'S LAWYERS!  

        •  The purpose is that they won't be overturned, (0+ / 0-)

          the Court is intervening in the presidential sweepstakes to guarantee that its continuous GOP dynasty ever since Nixon survives, self-packing. The Court is supremacist, protecting its supremacy over all state and federal branches by controlling the elections of those who vote on Court membership. Read the actual decisions, this jurisprudence does not respect the law, the other branches or the Constitution, only the musings of judges. Read Prof. Ackerman's "We the People" about this type of hyperformalism. The Court is betting that no political movement will now be able to challenge its domination over the country, eternal judicial supremacy.

          •  If 1 of the 5 is replaced by someone (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Musial

            who will join the minority 4, things could change in a hurry.

            "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

            by Paleo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 09:58:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly- that's why they took McCutcheon- it's (0+ / 0-)

              urgent for them, and the history of McCutcheon is not like a real law suit, but was set up by movement conservatives to tee up this decision for the Court. The party came to the rescue of the Court.

  •  I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfromga, AJayne, Skyye, Scioto

    As I commented earlier:

    How Privately-Funded Elections work.

    Even Einstein joked about what would happen if Parties and political candidates were not required to use public funding, only.

    The punchline was the corporate ownership of all branches of the government -- completely separating the electorate from any real influence on the legislative process.

    I don't think even Einstein anticipated that the government would one day legalize media monopolies (unthinkable at the time) -- and legalize media-lying to the voters about election issues that would affect their lives (which was illegal in the US during Einsten's lifetime).

  •  5-4 decision. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scioto

    WHAT A SHOCK.

    Yes we can! Yes we did! Yes we will!

    by Sister Havana on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:34:29 AM PDT

  •  Sigh (0+ / 0-)

    Why yes there is a war on women and minorities.

    by karma5230 on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:36:56 AM PDT

  •  The decision simply removes the aggregate (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, tmservo433, Darmok, MGross, flash123

    limits. Limits on how much one individual can contribute to one candidate or committe remain and the Court specifically added that structuring campaign finance law to restrict transfer between candidates/committees is OK and also came down in favor of disclosure:

    Finally, disclosure of contributions minimizes the potential for abuse of the campaign finance system. Disclosure requirements are in part “justified based on a governmental interest in ‘provid[ing] the electorate with information’ about the sources of election-related spending.” Citizens United, 558 U. S., at 367 (quoting Buckley, supra, at 66).They may also “deter actual corruption and avoid theappearance of corruption by exposing large contributionsand expenditures to the light of publicity.” Id., at 67. Disclosure requirements burden speech, but—unlike theaggregate limits—they do not impose a ceiling on speech. Citizens United, supra, at 366; but see McConnell, supra,
    at 275–277 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). For that reason, disclosure often represents a less restrictive alternative to flat bans on certain types or quantities of speech. See, e.g., Federal Election Comm’n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238, 262 (1986).
    With modern technology, disclosure now offers a particularly effective means of arming the voting public withinformation. In 1976, the Court observed that Congresscould regard disclosure as “only a partial measure.” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 28. That perception was understandable in a world in which information about campaign contributions was filed at FEC offices and was therefore virtuallyinaccessible to the average member of the public. See Brief for Cause of Action Institute as Amicus Curiae 15–
    16. Today, given the Internet, disclosure offers much morerobust protections against corruption. See Citizens United, supra, at 370–371. Reports and databases are availa- ble on the FEC’s Web site almost immediately after they are filed, supplemented by private entities such as OpenSecrets.org and FollowTheMoney.org. Because massive quantities of information can be accessed at the click of a mouse, disclosure is effective to a degree not possible atthe time Buckley, or even McConnell, was decided.

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:40:15 AM PDT

  •  USA= (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paj1

    United States of (Sheldon) Adelson

    Look...nothing we can do about it now except try to reach and rally people through other means.  We are poor, but hopefully that doesn't mean we've lost our creativity!

  •  Did the GOP candidates who just visited Adelson (0+ / 0-)

    have inside info from Roberts or Scalia, so they could beat the rush?

    There's no such thing as a free market!

    by Albanius on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:48:17 AM PDT

  •  The Court also wants to reverse Mr. Dooley (0+ / 0-)

    who said "The Supreme Court follows the election returns."

    That effort began with Buckley v Vallejo, continued with Bush v Gore and Citizens United, and now McCutcheon.

    There's no such thing as a free market!

    by Albanius on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:51:36 AM PDT

  •  I would welcome our billionaire overlords (0+ / 0-)

    But they've been comfortable in the seats of power for centuries.

  •  Citizens Respond! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hannah

    Cut the
    Major Media News and Radio letters to CEO stating this ruling

    Vote by previous actions or votes

    Vote the small unfunded when practical to choose

    Vote and vote often

    Each one reach one and get them registered and to the polls

    I am just too through, I will refrain from getting too emotional and just work to act.

  •  It was illegitimate of Congress to restrict (0+ / 0-)

    how law abiding people spend money which is, after all, designed to be spent.
    Declaring good behavior to be illegal is not only violative of the Constitution, it denigrates the law, turning it into an instrument of control, rather than an upholder of justice.

    Money is a figment of the imagination, a symbol of obligations made tangible. As such, money is very similar to the alphabet we use to form words to represent sound.
    Visible and tangible tokens of ideas and relationships.

    That some people do not get symbols is not a reason to restrict their use.

    That I can't carry a tune does not give me the right to ban others singing.

    No, money is not speech, but it is like speech, just as is writing.

    http://hannah.smith-family.com

    by hannah on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 08:01:56 AM PDT

  •  Thanks very much (0+ / 0-)

    for including in your diary how the Court split.  We could all have guessed it, certainly, but it was helpful that you put the information out there with specifcity.

  •  Surprise-not! (0+ / 0-)

    In the majority opinion of the court by Roberts, the court ruled that the limits violate the First Amendment. The "aggregate limits do not further the permissible governmental interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance," the majority opinion read.

    Since the aggregate limits don't go far enough, let's throw them out.

    "If it ain't broke, don't worry, we're not done yet"
    Scotus motto.

  •  Excelent information and analysis on this case (0+ / 0-)

    at scotusblog. com. Here is a link:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/...

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:26:18 AM PDT

  •  Time to think about Impeachment & McCarthyism (0+ / 0-)

    It ls really beginning to look like the Right Wing is Morphing into a American version of a South African style apartheid.

     Worse yet, This Ruling will allow the Formation of a American  Oligarchy. Perhaps they may be consulting with the Russian Oligarchy on the best method of implementation of a Oligarchy class here .

    That is why their loyalty to the Constitution should be called into question and a Congressional hearing convened by the Democrats and Progressives.

    Right Wing GOP would do no less had the ruling gone against them......

  •  One name ' Jose Susumo Azano Matsura' (0+ / 0-)

    Is the Reason that this Ruling is totally out of touch with the best interest of America.

    Jose Susumo Azano Matsura , a Mexican businessman funneled more than $500,000 into U.S. political races through Super PACs and various shell companies. The alleged financial scheme is the first known instance of a foreign national exploiting the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in order to influence U.S. elections.

    From this day forward you may refer to the GOP as 'The Republicans of China' (via electronic industry PAC funds)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site