General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow The Supreme Court Just Legalized Money Laundering By Rich Campaign Donors
Chief Justice John Roberts begins his opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC with a flourish: [t]here is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. He then spends the next forty pages explaining why that participation includes the right of rich people to attempt to buy elections. Thanks to the decision Roberts and his four fellow conservative justices handed down today (Though Thomas did not join Roberts opinion, he wrote a more radical opinion calling for all limits on campaign donations to be eviscerated), wealthy donors now have a broad new power to launder money to political candidates they just have to be a bit creative about how they do it.
Prior to Wednesdays opinion, federal law placed two complementary limits on campaign donors. During the current election cycle, donors may give no more than $5,200 per election cycle ($2,600 for the primary and another $2,600 for the general) to a given federal candidate, and there are also higher limits on how much they can give to party committees and political action committees. These limits remain intact.
What McCutcheon invalidates are aggregate limits on the total amount of money that donors may give to all federal candidates ($48,600) and to all political committees ($74,600). Thus, before Wednesday, donors could spend as much as $123,200 seeking to influence the 2014 election cycle now they can spend as much as they want. Make no mistake, this decision benefits no one except for a handful of very wealthy donors (and the candidates they give to). Who else can say that theyve already given more than a hundred thousand dollars worth of donations and that they are upset that they cannot give even more?
A major purpose of the aggregate limits was to prevent money laundering schemes that could enable donors and political parties to evade the cap on donations to individual candidates. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer lays out what some of these schemes could look like. The Democratic or Republican Party, in one example, may set up a Joint Party Committee consisting of all three of their national party committees and a state party committee from each of the 50 states. Under McCutcheon, a single donor may now give as much as $1.2 million to this joint committee, which would then be distributed to the various smaller party organizations.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/04/02/3422036/how-the-supreme-court-just-legalized-money-laundering-by-rich-campaign-donors/
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)doing, and it's pure evil.