Supreme Court may strike new blow to campaign funding laws (LA Times)

[pinto]

Supreme Court may strike new blow to campaign funding laws

The Supreme Court, in a new campaign funding case, may lift a lid on the total the wealthy can give to all candidates and parties.

By David G. Savage
September 21, 2013, 7:24 p.m.

WASHINGTON — In what may be Act 2 in the decline and fall of campaign funding laws, the Supreme Court appears poised to lift the lid on the total amount the wealthy can give directly to all candidates and political parties.

Increasingly, the money that funds election races for Congress and the presidency comes from a small sliver of the very rich, what the Sunlight Foundation called the "elite class that serves as gatekeepers of public office in the United States." The nonpartisan group has tracked how a growing share of election money comes from the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans.

In the first major case of its new term, the court could give those donors even more clout with lawmakers and their parties. The issue is whether federal limits, not on contributions to individual races but on how much a donor can give to all candidates for Congress or party committees in a particular election cycle, violate the right of free speech.

<snip>

...On Oct. 8, the Supreme Court will take up an appeal from the Republican National Committee, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, who say contributions should be treated as "core political speech." If they win, wealthy Republicans or Democrats could each give as much as $3.6 million total by giving the maximum amount to all of their party committees and candidates. This money could be funneled by party leaders into a close race or races, tipping the balance of power in Congress.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-campaign-funds-20130922,0,4017320.story

[dkf]

1. Why are we such sheep when it comes to political ads anyway?

[pinto]

2. How do you mean?

[dkf]

3. Why should it matter how much money is being spent.

The truth should be the truth. The odd thing is how hard it is to do a decent analysis of a candidate with all the data that should be available to us.

There is a very very significant lack of transparency in government. That is why we are such suckers when it comes to political ads.

[pinto]

5. Ah, got you.

While it's hard to avoid political ad blitzes, I tend not to put much stock in most of them. Especially if the "source" is not clear. At times I'll search for who's actually behind some euphemistically labeled PAC. Always look at established voting records of a candidate I might consider supporting. Talk with fellow Dem's locally and on line. And go from there.

[dkf]

6. And it shouldn't be so difficult.

There should be a page on every vote and some blurb on why the candidate supported it or not. Isn't that what staff is for?

[pinto]

9. Agree.

Every major vote by a candidate (with a voting record) could be listed on the candidate's website with a short blurb clarifying the reasoning behind the vote.

[Loudly]

4. The Amendment:

It shall not be an infringement upon the rights of the People for Congress to limit by law the raising and expenditure of money in public elections.

[Scuba]

7. Any amendment that relies on Congress to do the right thing is fatally flawed.

[Loudly]

8. So the Citizens United decision is superior wisdom?

That was absolute castration of Congress.

[Scuba]

10. Hardly, but I prefer amendment language along the lines that Michael Moore suggested ...

Here's from Moore...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2364407



..snip..


a) A constitutional amendment that fixes our broken electoral system by 1) completely removing campaign contributions from the political process; 2) requiring all elections to be publicly financed; 3) moving election day to the weekend to increase voter turnout; 4) making all Americans registered voters at the moment of their birth; 5) banning computerized voting and requiring that all elections take place on paper ballots.

b) A constitutional amendment declaring that corporations are not people and do not have the constitutional rights of citizens. This amendment should also state that the interests of the general public and society must always come before the interests of corporations.


..end..

[Rhiannon12866]

11. Oh boy! This is bad enough already!

[DFW]

12. The new Scalia-Roberts Amendment

"The right of a few billionaires to buy the presidency, the members of Congress and the governors of the several states shall not be infringed."

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

13. Here is Theodore Roosevelt on corporate money in politics

All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services.

[Pakid]

14. How about my right to free speech

since I can't give millions of dollars to buy a politician then my rights are being step on when will some one like the ACLU step up and fight for my rights? If the most anyone could give was 25$ then all of us would be equal and that is what the law should be all about keeping it fair for all.

[Arkana]

15. The only comfort I take from this is that money does not directly correlate to votes.

If it did, Mitt Romney would be President right now.