100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: And the Supreme Court Does It Again | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
A 5-4 split decision handed down Wednesday morning by the Supreme Court of the United States has invalidated a long-standing law that limited the overall amount of money US citizens can contribute to political campaigns each election cycle. The landmark ruling in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission will not directly impact a law that currently keeps Americans from legally being able to contribute more than $2,600 apiece to individual candidates running for federal office each two-year period. It does, however, erase a so-called "aggregate cap" of $123,200 that up until now prevented people from contributing a combined total of more than $48,600 to the candidates of their choice and $74,000 on parties and Political Action Committees, or PACS, each cycle. Plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, a conservative electrical engineer from Alabama, insisted that the limits in place hindered his freedom of speech because it prohibited his ability to donate freely to the politicians he favored. During the last cycle, McCutcheon contributed the symbolically significant amount of $1,776 apiece to a total of 15 right-leaning candidates running for Congress, but FEC restrictions prohibited him from spending much more because signing checks to other candidates would have quickly put him over the aggregate cap. "It's about freedom of speech and your right to spend your money on as many candidates as you choose. It's a basic freedom," he said ahead of Wednesday’s ruling. This week’s decision leaves in place the limit of $2,600 applied to contributions made out to individual candidates, but rescinds the threshold that relegated how much money in all can be spent during two-year election cycles, opening the door for people like McCutcheon to be able to write $2,600 checks to as many candidates as they’d wish while allowing them to open their wallets to PACs and parties. New door to corruption has been opened. Read the whole story: Supreme Court strikes down limits on overall campaign contributions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Best government money can buy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just more ******** from the republicrats, business as usual. Big wigs in the GOP are going to everything possible to derail Rand Pauls run and to me that's reason enough to vote for him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Best government money can buy. I would agree that money has bought the government, seriously disagree with best. But look at the other side of the coin, the votes the government buys from the people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just more ******** from the republicrats, business as usual. Big wigs in the GOP are going to everything possible to derail Rand Pauls run and to me that's reason enough to vote for him. So let me understand, you are saying you haven't a clue so you just want to post a rant about some garbage about a possible new king. Just what does this have to do with the topic of the OP? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 5-4 split decision handed down Wednesday morning by the Supreme Court of the United States has invalidated a long-standing law that limited the overall amount of money US citizens can contribute to political campaigns each election cycle. The landmark ruling in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission will not directly impact a law that currently keeps Americans from legally being able to contribute more than $2,600 apiece to individual candidates running for federal office each two-year period. It does, however, erase a so-called "aggregate cap" of $123,200 that up until now prevented people from contributing a combined total of more than $48,600 to the candidates of their choice and $74,000 on parties and Political Action Committees, or PACS, each cycle. Plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, a conservative electrical engineer from Alabama, insisted that the limits in place hindered his freedom of speech because it prohibited his ability to donate freely to the politicians he favored. During the last cycle, McCutcheon contributed the symbolically significant amount of $1,776 apiece to a total of 15 right-leaning candidates running for Congress, but FEC restrictions prohibited him from spending much more because signing checks to other candidates would have quickly put him over the aggregate cap. "It's about freedom of speech and your right to spend your money on as many candidates as you choose. It's a basic freedom," he said ahead of Wednesday’s ruling. This week’s decision leaves in place the limit of $2,600 applied to contributions made out to individual candidates, but rescinds the threshold that relegated how much money in all can be spent during two-year election cycles, opening the door for people like McCutcheon to be able to write $2,600 checks to as many candidates as they’d wish while allowing them to open their wallets to PACs and parties. New door to corruption has been opened. Read the whole story: Supreme Court strikes down limits on overall campaign contributions No one cares what the Kremlin thinks.. Except you.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A 5-4 split decision handed down Wednesday morning by the Supreme Court of the United States has invalidated a long-standing law that limited the overall amount of money US citizens can contribute to political campaigns each election cycle. The landmark ruling in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission will not directly impact a law that currently keeps Americans from legally being able to contribute more than $2,600 apiece to individual candidates running for federal office each two-year period. It does, however, erase a so-called "aggregate cap" of $123,200 that up until now prevented people from contributing a combined total of more than $48,600 to the candidates of their choice and $74,000 on parties and Political Action Committees, or PACS, each cycle. Plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, a conservative electrical engineer from Alabama, insisted that the limits in place hindered his freedom of speech because it prohibited his ability to donate freely to the politicians he favored. During the last cycle, McCutcheon contributed the symbolically significant amount of $1,776 apiece to a total of 15 right-leaning candidates running for Congress, but FEC restrictions prohibited him from spending much more because signing checks to other candidates would have quickly put him over the aggregate cap. "It's about freedom of speech and your right to spend your money on as many candidates as you choose. It's a basic freedom," he said ahead of Wednesday’s ruling. This week’s decision leaves in place the limit of $2,600 applied to contributions made out to individual candidates, but rescinds the threshold that relegated how much money in all can be spent during two-year election cycles, opening the door for people like McCutcheon to be able to write $2,600 checks to as many candidates as they’d wish while allowing them to open their wallets to PACs and parties. New door to corruption has been opened. Read the whole story: Supreme Court strikes down limits on overall campaign contributions No one cares what the Kremlin thinks.. Except you.. Wrong again as usual, only the idiots don't care as they have no ability to determine any value, let alone the value of freedom. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 04/03/14 11:01 AM
|
|
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/money-speech-defense-mccutcheon-ruling/
Money is Speech: Liberal Myths Of Money In Politics Posted by Keith Farrell 03 Apr 2014 Every American has the right to support the political speech they choose by: Keith Farrell There is a lot of hyperbole going on in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. In what is being seen as an extension of the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling, the Court struck down aggregate limits of campaign donation over a two year period. While the amount one may give to an individual campaign has remained, the aggregate cap has been lifted, allowing individuals to donate to as many campaigns as they'd like. The majority opinion, authored by Justice John Roberts, stated that the cap failed to deter corruption while violating the First Amendment. Liberals, who often malign the right of people to spend their money as they choose, have been railing against Citizens United for the past four years. Yesterday's ruling, they have proclaimed, was America's final decent into plutocracy. In typical fashion, they ignore the very real effects of regulation in favor of fantastical fears over what bedlam could occur if Americans are allowed to do with their money as they see fit. Several myths go into the construction of the liberal narrative on McCutcheon. The first being the idea that Citizens United has helped to further wealthy Americans influence in elections. In actuality, the Super PACS which Citizens United gave way to have done more to help boost candidates who otherwise would not have been able to compete and thus prolonged our democratic process. Instead of an independently wealthy candidate like Mitt Romney running away with the election, Super PACs helped to prolong the race by giving candidates like Ron Paul additional revenue sources. Another pervasive myth is that the wealthy are a consolidated interest group, primarily rooted in the GOP. First, there is no collective of the wealthy of a single mind. Wealthy Americans, like all Americans, come from all ideological leanings. The five wealthiest Congressional districts are actually Democratic districts. Yet another myth about money and politics is that money buys elections. One need only recall Mitt Romney's loss to Barack Obama or Linda McMahon's failed bid for a Connecticut Senate seat to realize that money alone doesn't cut it. In another race from Connecticut, Dannel Malloy defeated the independently wealthy Tom Foley in our 2010 Governor's race. Having money is not enough to win elections, especially now that those without money can appeal to a wider donor base. The last myth this narrative requires is one of the gullibility and ignorance of the American people in general. The myth would have it believed that Americans are helpless to discern truth for themselves, that government needs to regulate our elections or we will simply vote for who has the most TV ads or shiniest buttons. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed this myth in 2012. He said that believing that allowing Americans discretion with their own money meant that corporation and the wealthy would simply buy government was to believe that the people were sheep.If you believe that we ought to go back to monarchy. That the people are such sheep that they just swallow whatever they see on television or read in the newspapers? No. The premise of democracy is that people are intelligent and can discern the true from the false. Americans have the right to speak politically and to use the fruits of their labors to support other's political speech. The SCOTUS was absolutely correct when it linked political contributions to the First Amendment right of free speech. Every American has the right to support the candidates he or she chooses to. The alternative to this type of political funding is public financing of campaigns. That means pro-gun rights advocates would have their money used to support candidates who favor gun control. It would mean Catholics would be made to fund pro-choice candidates. It would mean gay Americans having to fund the campaigns of people who wish to deprive them of rights. Cronyism, which leads to conflicts of interest and a revolving door between corporate and elected positions, is created by the influence we allow the federal government in certain sectors and not by allowing the free exchange of money and ideas. It's the politicizing of these markets that creates the problem. Regulating the economic and democratic rights of all Americans isn't the answer. About the Author: Keith Farrell is a regular contributor to The Libertarian Republic, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/money-speech-defense-mccutcheon-ruling/ Money is Speech: Liberal Myths Of Money In Politics Posted by Keith Farrell 03 Apr 2014 Every American has the right to support the political speech they choose by: Keith Farrell There is a lot of hyperbole going on in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. In what is being seen as an extension of the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling, the Court struck down aggregate limits of campaign donation over a two year period. While the amount one may give to an individual campaign has remained, the aggregate cap has been lifted, allowing individuals to donate to as many campaigns as they'd like. The majority opinion, authored by Justice John Roberts, stated that the cap failed to deter corruption while violating the First Amendment. Liberals, who often malign the right of people to spend their money as they choose, have been railing against Citizens United for the past four years. Yesterday's ruling, they have proclaimed, was America's final decent into plutocracy. In typical fashion, they ignore the very real effects of regulation in favor of fantastical fears over what bedlam could occur if Americans are allowed to do with their money as they see fit. Several myths go into the construction of the liberal narrative on McCutcheon. The first being the idea that Citizens United has helped to further wealthy Americans influence in elections. In actuality, the Super PACS which Citizens United gave way to have done more to help boost candidates who otherwise would not have been able to compete and thus prolonged our democratic process. Instead of an independently wealthy candidate like Mitt Romney running away with the election, Super PACs helped to prolong the race by giving candidates like Ron Paul additional revenue sources. Another pervasive myth is that the wealthy are a consolidated interest group, primarily rooted in the GOP. First, there is no collective of the wealthy of a single mind. Wealthy Americans, like all Americans, come from all ideological leanings. The five wealthiest Congressional districts are actually Democratic districts. Yet another myth about money and politics is that money buys elections. One need only recall Mitt Romney's loss to Barack Obama or Linda McMahon's failed bid for a Connecticut Senate seat to realize that money alone doesn't cut it. In another race from Connecticut, Dannel Malloy defeated the independently wealthy Tom Foley in our 2010 Governor's race. Having money is not enough to win elections, especially now that those without money can appeal to a wider donor base. The last myth this narrative requires is one of the gullibility and ignorance of the American people in general. The myth would have it believed that Americans are helpless to discern truth for themselves, that government needs to regulate our elections or we will simply vote for who has the most TV ads or shiniest buttons. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed this myth in 2012. He said that believing that allowing Americans discretion with their own money meant that corporation and the wealthy would simply buy government was to believe that the people were sheep.If you believe that we ought to go back to monarchy. That the people are such sheep that they just swallow whatever they see on television or read in the newspapers? No. The premise of democracy is that people are intelligent and can discern the true from the false. Americans have the right to speak politically and to use the fruits of their labors to support other's political speech. The SCOTUS was absolutely correct when it linked political contributions to the First Amendment right of free speech. Every American has the right to support the candidates he or she chooses to. The alternative to this type of political funding is public financing of campaigns. That means pro-gun rights advocates would have their money used to support candidates who favor gun control. It would mean Catholics would be made to fund pro-choice candidates. It would mean gay Americans having to fund the campaigns of people who wish to deprive them of rights. Cronyism, which leads to conflicts of interest and a revolving door between corporate and elected positions, is created by the influence we allow the federal government in certain sectors and not by allowing the free exchange of money and ideas. It's the politicizing of these markets that creates the problem. Regulating the economic and democratic rights of all Americans isn't the answer. About the Author: Keith Farrell is a regular contributor to The Libertarian Republic, While the Citizen's United opinion was just a plain violation of the rights of free man, this opinion is not as bad in some respects but just as bad in others. It turns politics into a money game, those with money get to play while all the rest settle. Now this opinion is good from the standpoint of a person should be allowed to contribute his own funds willingly to as many candidates and causes as their are causes and candidates. It is bad in the huge sums allowed to be contributed to each. Now the fairest way would be public funding, but not from tax proceeds but from a voluntary contribution from the people, live human beings. The funds collected would then be split amongst the various offices and that is total funding. Now what if no one gives, then I guess that no one cares and a candidate would be on their own. But in the above article, here is something I found interesting: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia addressed this myth in 2012. He said that believing that allowing Americans discretion with their own money meant that corporation and the wealthy would simply buy government was to believe that the people were sheep. If you believe that we ought to go back to monarchy. That the people are such sheep that they just swallow whatever they see on television or read in the newspapers? No. The premise of democracy is that people are intelligent and can discern the true from the false. Now I like Scalia because outside Thomas, he is one of the more constitutionally inclined justices currently wearing those black robe costumes. "People were sheep", they are, Odumbo has proved that twice already, but he is out of order on the monarchy bit, we have no king, but a fascist puppet for the oligarchy. People do swallow what they see on TV, in droves, but for him to think this nation a democracy is just beyond comprehension. That in itself is a violation of his oath to defend the constitution and demands his removal from that stage as a bad actor. |
|
|
|
|
