SCOTUS Strikes Down Limits on Overall Federal Campaign Contributions

[Matthew5]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a major campaign finance decision, striking down some limits on federal campaign contributions for the first time. The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and most likely increase the already large role money plays in American politics.

The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, with the Court’s more conservative justices in the majority, was a sequel of sorts to Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. But that ruling did nothing to affect the other main form of campaign finance regulation: caps on direct contributions to candidates and political parties.


Wednesday’s decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, No. 12-536, addressed that second kind of regulation.

It did not affect familiar base limits on contributions from individuals to candidates, currently $2,600 per candidate in primary and general elections. But it said that overall limits of $48,600 by individuals every two years for contributions to all federal candidates violated the First Amendment, as did separate aggregate limits on contributions to political party committees, currently $74,600.

[eduardo89]

In 5-4 Decision, SCOTUS Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Finance Limits (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/04/02/supreme-court-overturns-campaign-finance-law-n1817943)


The Supreme Court today handed down their decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, and the 5-4 decision carried by the Court's conservative justices has overturned the aggregate limits on campaign contributions to political candidates. Candidate limits will remain intact - so while no individual may give more than $5,200 to a candidate, they are no longer limited in their overall direct contribution limits in each cycle.

As Justice Roberts writes in the majority opinion:
To put it in the simplest terms, the aggregate limits prohibit an individual from fully contributing to the primary and general election campaigns of ten or more candidates, even if all contributions fall within the base limits Congress views as adequate to protect against corruption. The individual may give up to $5,200 each to nine candidates, but the aggregate limits constitute an outright ban on further contributions to any other candidate (beyond the additional $1,800 that may be spent before reaching the $48,600 aggregate limit). At that point, the limits deny the individual all ability to exercise his expressive and associational rights by contributing to someone who will advocate for his policy preferences. A donor must limit the number of candidates he supports, and may have to choose which of several policy concerns he will advance—clear First Amendment harms that the dissent never acknowledges.

It is no answer to say that the individual can simply contribute less money to more people. To require one person to contribute at lower levels than others because he wants to support more candidates or causes is to impose a special burden on broader participation in the democratic process.

Continue Reading: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/04/02/supreme-court-overturns-campaign-finance-law-n1817943


Very good ruling. A win for free speech.

[angelatc]

Wow. I am surprised I can't hear the liberal heads exploding all across the entire country. You're right - this is a pro-freedom ruling.

[eduardo89]

Wow. I am surprised I can't hear the liberal heads exploding all across the entire country. You're right - this is a pro-freedom ruling.

Chief Justice Roberts made a good point in the majority opinion. Liberals will cry about who this will increase corruption, but Roberts said something along the lines of "Why is it fine to contribute $5,200 to 9 candidates, but automatically corrupt and illegal to donate $5,200 to 10 candidates?"

[angelatc]

Chief Justice Roberts made a good point in the majority opinion. Liberals will cry about who this will increase corruption, but Roberts said something along the lines of "Why is it fine to contribute $5,200 to 9 candidates, but automatically corrupt and illegal to donate $5,200 to 10 candidates?"

Personally, I'd take off all the personal limits. Why it is fine to donate $5,200 to a candidate, but evil and corrupt to donate $5,201?

[eduardo89]

Personally, I'd take off all the personal limits. Why it is fine to donate $5,200 to a candidate, but evil and corrupt to donate $5,201?

I agree. But this is a good first step towards true political speech freedom.

[Matthew5]

Financial limits only gives the illusion that "the common man" actually has any power. I say uncap that bad boy and be ideologically consistent.

[angelatc]

I agree. But this is a good first step towards true political speech freedom.

Yes, I'm certainly not an ideologue who won't celebrate winning a battle because the war isn't over. Baby steps forward are better than backward.

[jurgs01]

This is a great ruling. Trying to regulate campaign finance is classical treating the symptom rather than the problem. The symptom is money in politics. The problem is that the government has so much control over our money and economy.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Put the Guilt on the politicians who wrote the laws for themselves and their money masters...

This should be the number one issue to fire every politician that supported the McCain-Feingold Act. Heck fire them all because none of them have done anything to fix campaign bribery laws.

[eduardo89]

I'm surprised the forum leftists haven't chimed in yet.

[56ktarget]

Great! Now lets trash those pesky individual cap limits. 2nd gilded age, here we come!

[PRB]

Wow. I am surprised I can't hear the liberal heads exploding all across the entire country. You're right - this is a pro-freedom ruling.

I do, all I hear are a bunch of retarded "if money is speech" non-jokes. Liberals are so good at strawmanning landmark decisions, they still haven't gotten tired of the Citizens United strawman that 'corporations are people'.

Next stop : allow foreigners to donate.

[PRB]

I'm surprised the forum leftists haven't chimed in yet.

we must stop them corporations from buyin our votes!!!!!

[PRB]

Personally, I'd take off all the personal limits. Why it is fine to donate $5,200 to a candidate, but evil and corrupt to donate $5,201?

if we take off personal limits, then the next logical step would be to keep donors private. why are votes private but donations public? that never made sense to me.

[angelatc]

we must stop them corporations from buyin our votes!!!!!

Says the same people who use tax money to buy theirs.

[PRB]

Says the same people who use tax money to buy theirs.

liberals love government and hate corporations, why is that hypocritical?

[angelatc]

liberals love government and hate corporations, why is that hypocritical?

Using money to buy votes is evil. Using other people's money to buy votes is double evil.

[Philhelm]

if we take off personal limits, then the next logical step would be to keep donors private. why are votes private but donations public? that never made sense to me.

A voter is presumably a U.S. citizen (ha!) who has a right to cast a vote in secret. Perhaps donations are private in order to ensure that a candidate isn't being paid off by a foreign power (ha!).

[PRB]

A voter is presumably a U.S. citizen (ha!) who has a right to cast a vote in secret. Perhaps donations are private in order to ensure that a candidate isn't being paid off by a foreign power (ha!).

Donations are NOT currently private, but should be!

[PRB]

Using money to buy votes is evil. Using other people's money to buy votes is double evil.

not according to liberal logic, for liberals, everything they do is good as long as they agree with the agenda or if government does it instead of private corporations.

[otherone]

Next stop : allow foreigners to donate.

Of course. The first amendment protects free speech of EVERYONE, not just Americans. Although only citizens can vote, there is no Constitutional basis that prevents foreigners from buying elections.

[Natural Citizen]

When is the last time anyone saw a corporation come home from war in a body bag? Never? That's what I thought.

[PRB]

When is the last time anyone saw a corporation come home from war in a body bag? Never? That's what I thought.

that doesn't mean you haven't seen corporation OWNERS, SHAREHOLDERS, STAKEHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES come home in a body bag.

[Natural Citizen]

Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections (http://mexican-tycoon-exploited-super-pacs-influence-us-elections)

[Natural Citizen]

that doesn't mean you haven't seen corporation OWNERS, SHAREHOLDERS, STAKEHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES come home in a body bag.

I'll ask again. When is the last time anyone saw a corporation come home from war in a body bag?

[PRB]

I'll ask again. When is the last time anyone saw a corporation come home from war in a body bag?

about as many times as I see cars come home from war in a body bag.

[Brett85]

I'm surprised to see all of the comments in favor of this ruling. A lot of the comments I've seen from libertarians here and on the DP in the past made it sound like a large number of libertarians are in favor of campaign finance laws which place limits on contributions.

[PRB]

I'm surprised to see all of the comments in favor of this ruling.


You're surprised to see that on a forum of anti-government people, people support a less government ruling?



A lot of the comments I've seen from libertarians here and on the DP in the past made it sound like a large number of libertarians are in favor of campaign finance laws which place limits on contributions.

those are libertarians who want government because somebody isn't playing fair, the same people who want border enforcement, DUI enforcement and labeling GMOs.

[otherone]

Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections (http://mexican-tycoon-exploited-super-pacs-influence-us-elections)

The Constitution protects the Mexican's Right to free speech. He can buy our politicians with the same alacrity as our native collectives, which, apparently, have Rights just like people.

[eduardo89]

Of course. The first amendment protects free speech of EVERYONE, not just Americans. Although only citizens can vote, there is no Constitutional basis that prevents foreigners from buying elections.

There's also no constitutional basis to say only US citizens have the right to vote. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say only US citizens may vote in US elections.

[otherone]

There's also no constitutional basis to say only US citizens have the right to vote. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say only US citizens may vote in US elections.

Cool. Everyone votes!
There's free speech for ya'.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Don't these sorts of rulings make it easier to buy influence? If these laws were taken to the extreme and all limits removed, it could also set up a bidding war which would send the price of a Federal election spiraling out of control. (Repubs: "The Dems spent $1 billion this year, gotta double that next year." Dems: "The Repubs spent $2 billion this time, gotta double that next time."...and so on)

We are already sort of seeing this.

[PRB]

Don't these sorts of rulings make it easier to buy influence?


How is that a bad thing? if influence can't be bought, how do you get it? by force?



If these laws were taken to the extreme and all limits removed, it could also set up a bidding war which would send the price of a Federal election spiraling out of control.


It's called freedom, asshole! You want the federal government to control our elections huh?



(Repubs: "The Dems spent $1 billion this year, gotta double that next year." Dems: "The Repubs spent $2 billion this time, gotta double that next time."...and so on)

We are already sort of seeing this.

Yeah, and I don't see what's your problem unless you hate freedom.

[PRB]

There's also no constitutional basis to say only US citizens have the right to vote. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say only US citizens may vote in US elections.

so what does being a citizen mean if it doesn't mean enjoyment of specific privileges such as right to vote?

[otherone]

so what does being a citizen mean if it doesn't mean enjoyment of specific privileges such as right to vote?

Voting isn't a "right", just as healthcare and ham on Easter isn't a "right". Free speech is a constitutionally protected Right, and as actual Rights aren't restricted to citizens (unlike voting), I see no argument against allowing foreigners to spend their money as they wish. So if the scotus believe money=speech, then let the campaign wars of Putin versus Xi Jinping commence! Think of all that dough being pumped into Rupert Murdoch's coffers!

[otherone]

so what does being a citizen mean if it doesn't mean enjoyment of specific privileges such as right to vote?

Elections are meaningless, anyway. It would be more expedient to vote for an EIN instead of a name.

[angelatc]

Don't these sorts of rulings make it easier to buy influence? If these laws were taken to the extreme and all limits removed, it could also set up a bidding war which would send the price of a Federal election spiraling out of control. (Repubs: "The Dems spent $1 billion this year, gotta double that next year." Dems: "The Repubs spent $2 billion this time, gotta double that next time."...and so on)

We are already sort of seeing this.

As long as they're using our money to buy votes with subsidies and welfare, I see no logical reason to keep us from buying their votes. At least we're using our own money.

[angelatc]

You're surprised to see that on a forum of anti-government people, people support a less government ruling?



those are libertarians who want government because somebody isn't playing fair, the same people who want border enforcement, DUI enforcement and labeling GMOs.

Agreed. I'm not a Libertarian, and I do support border enforcement. But I think this is a good thing. People who do not like political parties should be very happy with this ruling, because it allows big donors to contribute directly to the candidates of their choice, bypassing the party entirely.

[PRB]

Voting isn't a "right", just as healthcare and ham on Easter isn't a "right".


I said privilege before I said right, didn't I?



Free speech is a constitutionally protected Right, and as actual Rights aren't restricted to citizens (unlike voting), I see no argument against allowing foreigners to spend their money as they wish. So if the scotus believe money=speech, then let the campaign wars of Putin versus Xi Jinping commence! Think of all that dough being pumped into Rupert Murdoch's coffers!

No, SCOTUS does NOT say money = speech, this is the same kind of liberal strawman as people who say corporations are people.

[angelatc]

I said privilege before I said right, didn't I?



No, SCOTUS does NOT say money = speech, this is the same kind of liberal strawman as people who say corporations are people.

Out of rep, but that is spot on.

[PRB]

Out of rep, but that is spot on.

Thanks, don't worry, there'll be more opportunities later :)

[otherone]

No, SCOTUS does NOT say money = speech, this is the same kind of liberal strawman as people who say corporations are people.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. It introduced the idea that money counts as speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo), and eliminated any previous restraints on unlimited spending in US election campaigns. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.

[angelatc]

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. It introduced the idea that money counts as speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo), and eliminated any previous restraints on unlimited spending in US election campaigns. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.

You're quoting Wikipedia, not the actual written decision. You realize that, right?

This is from the decision itself:
Yet this Court has never suggested that the dependence of a communication on the expenditure of money operates itself to introduce a nonspeech element or to reduce the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment.

[PRB]

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down several provisions in the 1974 Amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. It introduced the idea that money counts as speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo), and eliminated any previous restraints on unlimited spending in US election campaigns. The Court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals' campaign contributions.

Thanks! That actually puts things in context and perspective.

Counts as, means "it's a form of" that's not the same as "=". There's a difference between saying "spending money is a means of expression" vs "having money is a form of speech".

Meaning not all money is speech, and not all speech is money. To be clear, what they're saying is "spending money can be a means of expressing speech", this is different than saying having money is having speech, one of countless absurd conclusions you can come up with.

I appreciate that you dug into this and taught me, that the idea of political contributions as a form of speech (and restrictions of one would constitute restriction on the other), is not new from McCutcheon.

If people are not cars, why are people regulated on roads? Don't we know cars are what actually run at 40-100mph?

[PRB]

You're quoting Wikipedia, not the actual written decision. You realize that, right?

This is from the decision itself:

Yes, "money counts as speech", although not in the opinion and ruling itself, is not a bad summary, or at least I'm willing to respond to it.

The funny thing is, if money was NOT speech, then why is Sarah Palin complaining that Duck Dynasty was threatened for cancellation? We simply can't have it both ways. If money DOESN'T buy speech, then what's the harm in it? :D

[eduardo89]

so what does being a citizen mean if it doesn't mean enjoyment of specific privileges such as right to vote?

Being a 'citizen' just means that the federal government find itself entitled to your labour and your body.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that voting is a right/privilege afforded only to citizens.

[PRB]

Being a 'citizen' just means that the federal government find itself entitled to your labour and your body.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that voting is a right/privilege afforded only to citizens.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

contrast this with "right of the people"

[eduardo89]

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

contrast this with "right of the people"

Where does the Constitution ever say that the right to vote is limited to only US citizens?

[PRB]

Where does the Constitution ever say that the right to vote is limited to only US citizens?

It says citizens have a right
It doesn't say non-citizens have the right

I got a better question, where does it say the law and enforcement of the Constitution ends at the nation's borders, and where are the borders specified in the document? No answer? Ok, so that means the Constitution can apply to anywhere, anybody, without consent, after all, I bet it doesn't say anything about only those who consented are governed by it.

[eduardo89]

It says citizens have a right
It doesn't say non-citizens have the right

It doesn't say non-citizens don't have the right to vote.