BREAKING: Caps on Total Campaign Giving Struck Down by U.S. Supreme Court

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters / Bloomberg

@BloombergNews: BREAKING: Caps on total campaign giving struck down by U.S. Supreme Court.

@SCOTUSblog: Breaking: #scotus strikes down aggregate campaign contribution limits 5-4 per Chief Justice Roberts in McCutcheon case.

Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign donation caps

By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON | Wed Apr 2, 2014 10:46am EDT

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expanded how much political donors can give candidates and parties in federal elections by striking down a key pillar of campaign finance law.

On a 5-4 vote, the court struck down the overall limits on how much individuals can give to candidates, parties and political action committees in total during the federal two-year election cycle.

The ruling leaves in place base limits on how much a donor can give individual candidates and laws that require candidates, parties and political action committees to disclose information about donors.

The court was divided over how sweeping the ruling actually is. The biggest impact is that a single donor can now give the maximum amount by law to as many federal candidates, parties and committees as he or she wishes.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3116V20140402?feedType=RSS&irpc=932

[CJCRANE]

1. I had a feeling they would go for broke!

Open the floodgates!

[lostincalifornia]

2. So they have actually completely destroyed even the smallest thread of the campaign finance reform.

They have effectively taken the place of a separate body, and made their own law

[CJCRANE]

6. Citizens United was their surprise for the 2010 mid-terms.

It stands to reason that they would pull another rabbit out of the hat for this year's.

[lostincalifornia]

11. Harldly anything wasn't left before, now even that is gone.

[Blue_Tires]

68. Sadly, some morons still try to spin CU like it was a positive thing

[Dustlawyer]

117. The only thing "positive" is that these rich MF'ers will make fools of themselves spending so much

that we MAY be able to have it backfire on them. "My Republican opponent believes that the rich should be able to have more influence than you on running the country. You can see by the constant campaign commercials that he/she runs against me that they think you do not deserve a voice! Think about that the next time you see his/her campaign ad!"

[IkeRepublican]

132. Rich liberal interests...

Should go full throttle on bashing this ruling in between now and the mid terms. Only real hope for it being struck down would be another Watergate type-thing with a Republican president...and I don't think that's even possible considering how every bastard who got the Iraq mess rolling is living the dream while drinking the blood of our great American soldiers.

[Ikonoklast]

122. Glenn Greenwald loves the CU ruling.

Greenwald sees it as the best thing since sliced bread.


Democracy can now legally be crucified on a cross bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

[redwitch]

134. All I could think of when I heard the news today was Romney's voice.

"Corporations are people my friend"

[rhett o rick]

13. We no longer have a "balance of power" in our government. The SCOTUS has taken

control.

[lostincalifornia]

16. It sure seems that way

[aggiesal]

100. Call this what it really is-Fascism ...

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini

Benito Mussolini is the father of fascism, so he should know.

[RiverNoord]

115. Well, if we're too stupid or lazy or inept

to push hard for appropriate Constitutional Amendments to take such issues out of the hands of the Supreme Court, then all the decrying of the death of the democratic process in our country is pointless.

If you can whine about it, then you should be able to act. Of course, that would require long-term dedication and determination and the acceptance that a portion of your personal life will be expended in the service of your country. How many of us will take this burden upon ourselves?

[rhett o rick]

116. If you are trying to stir us on to greater things, you are failing. nm

[RiverNoord]

126. Nope, I'm just tired of the 'hero/villian' nonsense of

modern politics in which people assume that voting in the 'right people' and voting out the 'wrong people' will somehow result in genuine progress.

The 'right people' tend to become quite comfortable and complacent once they've been office for a while, eventually becoming nothing more than mouths to provide lip service to the principles they once proclaimed.

It's not the Supreme Court that's messed up on the campaign finance issue - it's anyone who is worried about the future of our 'democracy' but believes that institutionalized mega money campaign financing could possibly be brought to an end, or even minimized, by way of anything less than an amendment to the United States Constitution.

[gtar100]

3. Deliberate. How anyone can use reason to come to the conclusion that this is just or fair is beyond

me. But apparently not for the conservative asshats who parade as supreme court justices.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. The day democracy died.

But then, it had been totally debilitated, in a vegetative state and on life support for some time now.

Pulling the plug at last was the only kind thing to do.

One dollar, one vote.

[awoke_in_2003]

51. 22NOV1963. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

61. Maybe so, but it wasn't obvious at the time.

Most of us had no clue about the "Deep State" in those days.

[awoke_in_2003]

79. they are not even

trying to hide it anymore

[villager]

94. No they are not, because they know Americans are too supine to do a damn thing about it

n/t

[LonePirate]

5. The Koch brothers and their ilk will soon be buying every single election now.

[Cal33]

80. There is a movement to boycott Koch brothers goods and products. Read post under "Politics 2014."

Hit them where it hurts -- their pocket books.

[CanonRay]

93. Right down to the smallest school board and city council member.

Disgusting.

[Roy Rolling]

7. Quiet

I'm sure the outrage over "legislating from the bench" will be all over Faux News-----not.

[mikeysnot]

44. don't hold your breath!

Projection is their only weapon they have...

[florida08]

8. bastard people

vigorously usurping our government

[dotymed]

9. And the (almost complete) corporate

take-over of Amerika is further "legitimized."

We won't take to the streets so I guess we double down on suffering.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. .

[ananda]

12. I'm not exactly surprised, but this is a horribly bad decision.

..

[OnyxCollie]

14. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Solly Mack]

15. K&R

[malthaussen]

17. Yep, that'll do it.

That should put a few dollars into circulation.

-- Mal

[bpj62]

18. GOTV

Maybe this decision will finally force our base to get out and vote in off year elections. The only way we can counter the money is by voting in more democrats so that we can create a firewall against the money and then work to change the campaign financing rules because unless Scalia or Thomas suddenly have a coronary we are stuck with the 5-4 issue for quite some time. We need to isolate the Supreme Courts ability to legislate from the bench.

[2banon]

101. I will not surprise me if the opposite effect will be seen

The U.S. seems to rank the bottom of the list on voter turn out in the worlds "democracies".

Theories widely vary, from "contentment" to "disenchantment". I'm thinking it's more of the latter, rather than the former.

[DJ13]

19. Read more: Link to source

Yes please?

[joshcryer]

25. Ruling here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

[DJ13]

47. Thank you

[BlancheSplanchnik]

20. oh fucking no.

[lostincalifornia]

21. Corporations are people, and corporations can by votes. Thank you supreme court for destroying the

country. Hell is not good enough for those who decided this

[mehrrh]

22. Roberts' Court is our downfall

The SCOTUS just doubled down on Citizens United -- a rich man can spend unlimited funds on a candidate or a party --- overwhelming ordinary citizens and their needs and desires with his own personal wants.

[juajen]

135. We have a lot of rich Democrats also.

Does this ruling mean that "Hollywood" spending has no limit?

[joshcryer]

23. Christ, read the dissent, they basically redefined corruption:

Goddamn.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

[OKNancy]

24. Caps on Total Campaign Giving Voided by U.S. Supreme Court - link enclosed

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-02/caps-on-total-campaign-giving-struck-down-by-u-dot-s-dot-supreme-court

A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down decades-old limits on the total money donors can give to federal candidates and parties, issuing its biggest campaign-finance ruling since the 2010 Citizens United decision.

Voting 5-4 along ideological lines, the court today said the caps violated the speech rights of Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican official seeking to give candidates, parties and political committees more than the $123,200 maximum. The court stopped short of undercutting a 1976 ruling that allows caps on contributions to individual candidates.

The limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise the most fundamental First Amendment activities,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s lead opinion.

[SunSeeker]

37. Throwing cash at politicians is not "the most fundamental First Amendment activity.” It is bribery.

Robert is dead wrong. Bush sure set his legacy appointing Roberts. We'll keep having these 5-4 outrages until fat Tony or one of the other conservative tools dies...assuming we have a Dem President when that happens.

[wordpix]

63. yup, Roberts' opinion says right there, "Campaign giving is free speech"

What a f-ing ahole along with the rest of the 5.

[Scuba]

26. ...

[toby jo]

46. Exactly

And we're too damn silent.

[mountain grammy]

66. +1000

[Blue_Tires]

69. +1

[theHandpuppet]

77. Until the revolt

I really don't know what it will take but there will be a breaking point. Or maybe I just need to believe that.

[2banon]

92. That's my question. What will be that final straw? n/t

[villager]

95. None, for Americans. Climate change spasms will eventually force a break-up into smaller polities

...and that will be the next big truly meaningful political "change."

"America," however, is finished.

[JudyM]

98. This is so often in my mind... we need to rise up. nt

[Enthusiast]

104. +1

[Tommy_Carcetti]

27. April Foo--

--oh, never mind. That was yesterday.

Shit.

[PoliticAverse]

28. USA Today- Supreme Court lifts ban on aggregate campaign donations

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/02/supreme-court-campaign-finance/4481675/

[baldguy]

29. This proves it.

Anyone who claims to be a liberal/progressive, yet won't unequivocally support Democrats & the Democratic Party, and keeps shouting that there's no difference between the two parties IS OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MIND!!

[rtracey]

30. well

It does work both ways, no? Sorry, but if we are going to have a corrupt court system, better to use the abuse then to be caught with it... Now lets get our Democrats to start pumping billions in.....

[handmade34]

38. ....

[rtracey]

113. thank you

I was hoping someone would catch my humor..... maybe....I guess when it come right down to it, not too funny huh, you know... US citizens getting F'd like this....

[handmade34]

119. sometimes

you have to laugh, as crying is the only alternative...

you are spot on... we are getting f^*ked big time!! education... getting people to understand the meaning of a this is important... us regular folks are so busy just maintaining, keeping our lives together, raising kids, figuring out how to make ends meet that often we don't take the time to realize how important politics are... I say VOTE as if your life depended on it; because it does!!

[earthside]

31. The cap stands on individual contests.

As I am understanding this the $2,600 contribution cap per candidate per primary and general election stands.

However, it means that the Koch boys can give the maximum to every single candidate for U.S. House and U.S. Senate in 2014. The aggregate cap has been eliminated.

Call the good ol' USA an oligarchy; call it a plutocracy ... it sure ain't much of a democratic republic anymore.

[underpants]

40. Correct - USA Today link

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/02/supreme-court-campaign-finance/4481675/

[joshcryer]

49. Until someone sues to raise that cap.

Which given Citizens United and this ruling would be obvious.

[Nay]

87. Exactly. If it interferes with free speech to have a general cap, it interferes

with free speech to have an individual cap, too. In about 6 months that cap will be gone as well.

[joshcryer]

123. Maybe a bit longer but definitely before 2016.

[lancer78]

56. I call it

a de facto nobility. The revolutionary war has been lost.

[MosheFeingold]

86. This will bite the Repugs on the rear

If you look at the big spenders, most of the top 25 or so are Democrat or liberal-leaning. (The Koch pukes are like 24th.)

This lets us spend more than them.

[Nay]

90. Even if that's true, Dems don't seem to know how to spend the money. We have

no Mighty Wurlitzers to broadcast our propaganda; no state grassroots orgs to pour money into every dem race, even if it's for dogcatcher; no effective national ads; not much of anything. The Pubs are 30 years ahead of us with all that shit, and we don't seem to be able to learn from them. If people truly are so dumb that they need to be propagandized to vote Dem, well, then, we need to swallow our revulsion and do what we need to do to turn things around.

But I'm betting we won't. The Pubs have also been successful in putting in their candidates under I or D designations -- that's why we're getting so many blue dogs.

[mostlyconfused]

103. This I didn't know

I was getting the impression that the Koch's were throwing money around and trying to influence elections more than anybody else.

[MosheFeingold]

128. No, the Kochs are small players, just effective

The are way down the list --- 59th -- I thought they were higher.

They are, however, assholes.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

The top 10 are:

Act Blue
American Fed & State Union
NEA
ATT
Int'l Bro of Elec Workers
National Association of Realtors
Goldman Sachs
UAW
Carpenters & Joinders Union
SEIU

[mostlyconfused]

141. They've been turned into boogie men

but it looks like there are many others with the potential to have much more influence on political races and the way politicians lead (or rather follow the will of their big donors).

Am I safe in assuming none of us on DU are particularly concerned if the new ruling allows Act Blue, the NEA, or UAW to make a lot more contributions and have more influence?

However, there are plenty of big fish on that list that are righties and spend a whole lot more than the Kochs.

[MosheFeingold]

142. The Kochs ARE boogiemen

Sure, there are bigger fish than the Kochs, but the Kochs are particularly crappy people. Hence, the focus.

[Politicub]

32. I'm sick to my stomach

Welcome to the new feudalism. We're going back to the days of monied nobility.

[underpants]

34. Me too

[zeemike]

50. It's already hear.

They just made it legal.

[myrna minx]

88. I'm just speechless.

[Orrex]

33. Welcome to the United States of Koch-Adelson.

[Ichingcarpenter]

35. I think it's safe to say

we are officially over the abyss.

[fasttense]

36. And the flood gates have been open

No longer is it one man one vote. The more money you have the more politicians you can buy. So it's more like 20 politicians per multi-millionaire.

The rich will rule us and the Dancing Supremes will ensure it. Now all bow down to our rich elites and their boughten justices to give it a sheen of legality. See how destabilizing a handful of uber rich people are to society.

[vi5]

39. Oh good.

This means the Democratic party will shift even further to the right as they chase that much needed campaign cash from wealthy/corporate donors.

[Brigid]

41. They'd better remember JFK's words:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Now that SCOTUS has stripped away even the illusion of democracy, guess what is coming next.

[Politicub]

45. Progressivism is not compatible with corporate rule

One will have to be broken and subdued.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. The really big money will still go in via dodgy 501(c)(3) and (4)s

If the limit is now $32,400 to a national party committee, plus $2,600 to each federal candidate, they can put in a bit over a million to an election (plus more in state elections, I guess). The real big spenders still need to use the Citizens United decision to funnel several million in via 'non-profit' 'educational' or 'civic issues' organizations that just happen to put out endless ads attacking Democratic positions.

[brooklynite]

43. I have mixed feelings about this...

....yes there's too much money in politics, but since there's still a limit on each campaign, having an arbitrary aggregate limit never made sense.

[Ichingcarpenter]

64. No surprise by your feelings on the matter

...thanks for telling us though

[brooklynite]

84. Well, I'll admit that I don't believe in unilaterally disarming...

Whether there's an aggregate limit on campaigns or not, there's already an open season on spending through Independent Expenditure groups.

[TRoN33]

48. I notice there is a patterns with Supreme Court decisions...

Nearly all of decisions pertaining the campaign contributions tends to be before mid-term elections.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. we have Fascists on the Supreme Court!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

53. Three Cheers for the Plutocrats!

No, wait, make that FOUR CHEERS.

Aw, fuck it, you can give them as many cheers as you want...

[spinbaby]

54. It's official, we have a plutocracy

Best government money can buy.

[msanthrope]

55. "What the Supreme Court Got Right" by Glenn Greenwald---

The Supreme Court yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, declared unconstitutional (on First Amendment grounds) campaign finance regulations which restrict the ability of corporations and unions to use funds from their general treasury for “electioneering” purposes. The case, Citizens United v. FEC, presents some very difficult free speech questions, and I’m deeply ambivalent about the court’s ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majority’s opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising ”judicial restraint” through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

Just a reminder that this was GG's apologia for Citizen's United. Can't wait to read the column on McCutcheon.

[Dawson Leery]

109. I have no admiration for war monger Glenn Greenwald.

[Adrahil]

57. Government for Sale. NT

[lastlib]

76. I think you can take down the For Sale sign--it's sold.

We lost the bid. Stick a fork in us, we're done............

. .

[yurbud]

58. somebody needs to ask if they believe in one person one vote or one billionaire one vote

[Hissyspit]

59. Thanks for the links, everyone. I got interrupted.

[Botany]

60. Another gift from bush v Gore ....

..... and HW Bush (C. Thomas)

The republicans know that the demographics from now out into the future is brutal
to them so they have to do everything they can to make sure the playing field is
not level.

[Oakenshield]

62. Welcome to America....

Where the wealthy rule as untouchable kings and queens. Somebody grab a guillotine, it'd high time we had ourselves a French style revolution.

[DonCoquixote]

65. but but but

I thought both parties were equally as bad.,.(sarcasm)>

[aintitfunny]

67. Impeach the Corporate Owned Supreme Court

Who are obscenely not supreme.

[Trust Buster]

70. A sobering wake up call to the Sanders/Warren crowd.......

....Given the relative ages of Supreme Court Justices, the next President will have the distinct privilege of nominating 2 if not 3 Supreme Court candidates. If a Republican wins in 2016, life as you know it in this country will dramatically change. You would see a 5-4 Right wing advantage moving to a 6-3 or 7-2 advantage.

In the next 2 years, every other consideration from the Left pales in comparison to the Supreme Court nominee issue. With that in mind, it is my opinion, if the Democrats skew farther to the Left with a Sanders and Warren, then you greatly put at risk the chances the of losing the essential middle voting block that decides Presidential elections to the Republican candidate. The fall of 2016 is no time to put on your "purist" swagger. The stakes are just too damn high.

[CANDO]

75. Love your phraseology...skew farther to the left.

As if we haven't been in an inexorable shift to the right for past 30+ years. Trying to get back to what we know has worked in the 20th century in creating a middle class and reducing poverty is in your words..."skewing" to the Left.

[Trust Buster]

81. I never mentioned the middle class and poverty.....

I merely stated that Presidential elections are won and lost based on which candidate wins the majority of those voters in the middle of the political spectrum. If you go with Sanders or Warren, you risk losing that middle and ending up with a Right wing advantage in the Supreme Court of 6-3 or 7-2. If that happens, you can kiss the middle class goodbye as well as welfare and choice and the EPA and public schools and Evolution and on and on....

[Enthusiast]

106. Based on the issues and polling, Sanders and Warren are as centrist as they come.

Some want to characterize them as extremists but nothing could be further from the truth.

[CANDO]

140. I didn't say you did.

You think the President won 2 terms campaigning as a Republican lite centrist? I remember a fairly leftist campaign and he won handily. Sadly, we didn't get a leftist President even though he campaigned as one.

[Nihil]

137. Yeah, it goes with "no time to put on your 'purist' swagger" ...

Remember now: No criticising the appointed heir and definitely no ignoring the orders given upthread
(in BOLD CAPS) to lock step and march blindly on the given path without daring to engage one's brain
(much less review the history of the previous decades ...).

[SoapBox]

71. We're doomed.

[jimlup]

72. This is an open admission by the court that our democracy is up for sale

damn it! Now we have to fix this somehow. And we may not be able to until the people realize what has happened and unfortunately by then it will likely be far too late.

[dhill926]

73. disgraceful……n/t

[aggiesal]

74. Call this what it really is-Fascism ...

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
― Benito Mussolini

Benito Mussolini is the father of fascism, so he should know.

[Evasporque]

78. Queue GOP removing donation limits.

GOP loves to be bribed.

[raouldukelives]

82. What else are corporations supposed to do with all that cash?

This is what every investor in Wall St silently funds & supports. Corporate attacks against our democracy, our environment, our labor laws, our criminal justice system, and our future.
While others are trying to GOTV and discuss the importance of electing good people and defeating bad initiatives. They are funding the very attacks against us. Funding lobbyists, climate change deniers, restrictive voting, redistricting, corporate apologists.
By they're own actions they are saying the best thing is for everyone to be in Wall St. That is the future they envision for all of us.
Some of them even claim they campaign for and support liberal candidates. To invest in corporations and then turn around and try to rally people for a champion against them? Hard to even imagine digging out of that hole. At best, one may break even. At worst, we are living in it.

[littlewolf]

83. I thought april fools day was yesterday. nt

[Whisp]

85. How is this different than that horror Citizens United?

I haven't had my first cuppa yet.

This sounds horrible by what some of the comments are, but can you tell me in simple words like I haven't yet had my cuppa?

[progressoid]

89. C U applied to corporations, associations, & labor unions.

This concerns individuals' donations. i.e. the Kock brothers.

[Whisp]

96. sounds like a coup!

holy smokes! bastards.

[Javaman]

91. Well, we always have our choco rations and our victory gin to fall back upon, right?

even though it's fake choco and the gin is watered down, it's still something, right? RIGHT??

No one should be surprised by this. before I opened this thread, I said to myself, "myself, I bet the vote was 5-4" and lo and behold, I was right.

remember the old saying about insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

well, since the court is 5 conservs to 4 libs, why do we all expect them to do something different?

with this ruling the concept of voting just was watered down just that much more.

"it's not who gets the most votes, it's who counts them" someone once said, but to paraphrase that, "it's not who gets the most votes, it's who that funds them".

We had a good run, but we got sleepy and stupid on too much tv, crap food and the brainwashing of a never ending spending spree with empty pockets.

and here we are, beaten down like the population under stalin. sure you can protest, but you better be prepared for a little pepper spray, a gas canister to the face or shot because you wore a hoodie.

Yeah, freedom. rah rah. just another word for when you have nothing left to lose. how much more do we have to lose?

[Brigid]

97. The chocolate ration has been increased.

[Javaman]

112. double plus good! nt

[Sunlei]

99. R moneybags now have no excuse to limit donations!! give! give! open bars, resorts & 'clubs' cost$$$

republican tea party, hobbit Leaders need new suits!

[The Stranger]

102. Senate Confirmation.

Too bad Harry Reid is a pile of warm goo.

He fucked us for a generation.

[historylovr]

121. He did indeed.

As did every Democrat who voted for these "justices."

[They_Live]

105. Could this be the end of astroturf?

This just legitimizes underhandedness.

Are there still limits on contributions? Were limits changed, or removed?

[stuffmatters]

130. When I've given to candidates directly it's not tax free or anonymous, like the Slush 501c(3)&Dark4

So is this a possible silver lining in this hideous right wing SCOTUS decision. Could it make the Kochs more visible (instead of their
deliberately impenetrable, shapeshifting, secret network of dark money 501s) and even take some money out of Rove's. Norquists etc coffers into direct contributions?

Dem individuals and corps are never ashamed, covert about their contributions. But The GOP hate/pollution money laundering thrives in the dark. I noticed in Feb 2014 SD mayor election recently that the Dem candidate clearly listed Union support in his ads. And he was, of course, relentlessly attacked by the Repub candidate for his union support.("pension collusion" was the slur) Meanwhile it's impossible, given all the RW love for SanDiego, that Koch's and Rove's and Norquist's and ALEC didn't seed and compose the antiunion flood of Repub Faulkoneer commercials. They fed into the Lincoln Club, "Chamber of Commerce", NFIB. ...there was probably a " their probable toxic donor ids remained hidden.


Maybe with this change, and the obscenely narcissistic personalities of Koch, Adelson, Freize et alios, these billionaires will be suckered into making detectable donations to their Repub candidates. The current "mainstream" Repub gambit is to claim they are "independent" more than Repub, since the Repub brand is currently so insane. And to keep thier rightwing donors well hidden so that they cannot be identified as "the Koch Bros candidate." under 501 id shielding (c4) Under both 501 c3 & 4 we as taxpayers subsidize the tax free donations of all of these rightwing billionaires.

That's my understanding, maybe I'm misinformed. But seems like this ruling might coax a few of these villains into the Sunlight and some of their donations onto the tax rolls.

It's a horrible decision and screams corporate/rightwing capture of SCOTUS and our tarttered democracy. But it might, just maybe, cause these RW creeps to overplay their hand.

[GeorgeGist]

107. Nail ...

meet coffin.

[sakabatou]

108. FUUUUUUU~!

[stuartsdesk1]

110. Are the Justices Able to Read English? You Could Have Fooled Me....

The 1st amendment to the constitution says -

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Everyone is guaranteed the right to speak their mind and to print their message in a newspaper.

But, is everyone guaranteed the right to be heard? If I have enough money, can I deluge the
public with unlimited propaganda? Can I shout down my opponents? Can I buy up more advertising
space in all of the newspapers? Buy up more air time? Buy 30 seconds of Superbowl time? Or buy up all
the advertising time during a Superbowl telecast?

There is no such guarantee in the 1st amendment. Reasonable laws limiting the right to be heard, having
the goal of insuring fairness, preserving the rights of disenfranchised and the poor to express their views are
not in violation of the constitution.

The Justices apparently are unable to read simple English. I thought this was a requirement
for entering law school? Evidently not.

For a lighter take on campaign finance, "Citizens United" and money in politics
please go to www.stuartsdesk.com

[Javaman]

114. the ruling today can be boiled down to one simple phrase...

"money talks"

that's all the conservs on the supreme apparently want to know.

[Dopers_Greed]

111. Boooooooo!

Fuck you SC.

[greymattermom]

118. I still don't get the point

No one has to watch tv commercials anymore. No one I know does, unless they watch live sports. On the ground organization is the key. Expensive, but probably not as costly as a media blitz.

[tclambert]

120. Your Congressman now allowed to wear sponsors' logos on his clothing in the Capitol building.

Hell, they might as well approve charging fees for voting, to defray the costs, don'tcha know. "You say you don't have a thousand dollars in cash on you? Well, then you can't vote. We hafta pay these election workers, you know. It's not like a bunch of retired senior citizens will volunteer to oversee these elections. We only hire highly skilled professionals to screen prospective voters. They get extensive training on how to prevent voter fraud, and weed out all but the most serious voters."

[Beacool]

124. Depressing..........

First Citizen's United, now this decision. The presidency will go to the side who can raise the most money. That has traditionally tended to favor the Republicans (except for the last two elections, but Obama won't be in the running in 2016).

This may sound predictable coming from me, and it will rankle many here, but I can only think of one viable Democrat who can counter the millions upon millions that the Republican nominee will have in his coffers: Hillary.

By 2016, the GOP may hold majorities in both chambers of Congress. If they also gain the WH, I don't see how we will recover as a nation. Look what 8 years of Bush brought on, and that was pre-Tea Party madness.

[mucifer]

125. I'm predicting Illinois will get a republican governor.

[blackspade]

127. Corrupt scum.

Worse SCOTUS ever.

[blkmusclmachine]

129. America, R.I.P.

[IkeRepublican]

131. Time to post George Carlin's rant on "The Owners"

We all know it, but it deserves a play when it calls for it and I consider it applicable here.

[icarusxat]

133. Too many people on this thread are...

under reacting...

[blackspade]

136. Unbelievably corrupt ruling.

How much we're they paid off?

[pam4water]

138. I know I should not have been, but I was kind of shocked by the ruling.

[Ned Fenwick]

139. And now, more killings at Ft. Hood, allegedly a guy back from the wars

George W. Bush, the gift that keeps on giving. But really, Ken Blackwell, Katherine Harris, T.Blossom, Bryan Fischer, Wayne LaPierre, et al, those fine folks who knowingly helped cheat that moral-free, conscienceless frat boy into the White House twice are what's brought us the slow-motion destruction of a way of life that was once the envy of the world. It's quite a wrecking crew, as blurbed, accurately, on the dust jacket of a recent successful book.

[greatlaurel]

143. We have to recognize we are dealing with some real intellectual lightweights, especially Roberts.

Roberts could very well be the the most stupid chief justice in history. He may not be the most corrupt, but he is clearly the most stupid man to ever get on the Supreme Court. That smarmy smile of his really shows that there is really not much going on in that brain of his.

[Orsino]

144. It was a republic.

We didn't keep it.