Scalia’s looming fiasco: Obscure new SCOTUS case may be WORSE than Citizens United

[DonViejo]

McCutcheon v. FEC could eradicate donor limits, pose "direct threat" to "the legitimacy of the laws," expert warns

JOSH EIDELSON

Sometime in the next three months – perhaps as early as next week – the Supreme Court will issue its next big campaign finance decision, a ruling that reformers worry will further open floodgates of one-percenter campaign cash. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, concerns a challenge by the RNC and conservative CEO Shaun McCutcheon to the federal laws restricting how much one person can donate to candidates and party committees each cycle.

“Really what’s at stake here is whether there’s just a few hundred or a few thousand people who can dominate the entire election process in the U.S.,” warned attorney Adam Lioz, a counsel for the progressive think tank Demos and co-author of the amicus brief filed by groups including the NAACP, the Sierra Club and the American Federation of Teachers. In a Monday interview, Lioz responded to arguments from Mitch McConnell, Antonin Scalia and First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams; discussed why neither side is satisfied with a 1976 precedent; and argued the legitimacy of America’s political process was under threat. A condensed version of our conversation follows.

What is the worst-case scenario in this case?

The worst-case scenario would be that the Court not only strikes down the aggregate limits, but does so in a way that calls into question contribution limits more generally, and puts them in the crosshairs…

The Court for decades has viewed spending limits under a standard known as strict scrutiny…but has been more deferential…with regard to contribution limits…

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/scalias_looming_fiasco_obscure_new_scotus_case_may_be_worse_than_citizens_united/

[Romulox]

1. Just came from the ACLU thread. $$$$$$$ = "speech", so what's the problem? nt

[Loudly]

2. The Amendment:

It shall not be an infringement of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution for Congress to limit by law the raising and expenditure of money in public elections.

[starroute]

3. I've been screaming about this for the past year

The case was brought by sleazy Tea Party lawyer Dan Backer, one of whose previous cases led to the creation of hybrid or "Carey" PACs. Backer is also one of the main figures behind the phony IRS "scandal."

There's a very deliberate agenda here to overturn all campaign donation limits on supposed free speech grounds and also do away with any kind of transparency regarding the donors. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court seems to be ready to play along.