'Millionaire's amendment' struck down by Supreme Court

[harun]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the "millionaire's amendment" as an unfair way to help opponents of wealthy candidates who spend from their personal fortunes.

The law allows candidates to receive larger contributions when their wealthy opponents spend heavily from their personal fortunes.

The court says by a 5-4 vote that the law violates the First Amendment.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25392713/

---

Could someone help me out with understanding how this relates to the First Amendment in any way?

[FSogol]

1. The court decided years ago that money = free speech. n/t

[harun]

2. Interesting, but the law doesn't stop the rich guy from spending. It just

helps the poor guy accept bigger donations. Why would that be considered limiting free speech?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. Buckley v. Valeo.

I believe this had to do with Wm. Buckley's brother running for Congress.

[regnaD kciN]

3. It's the Golden Rule...

..."He who has the gold, makes the rules."

In other words, you should have as much freedom of speech as you can buy.

Got it, now?

[BigDaddy44]

22. In this case, the guy with the gold was a Democrat

"The law was challenged by Jack Davis, a New York Democrat who has so far spent nearly $4 million of his own money in two losing campaigns for Congress and says he will spend another $3 million this year."

[Xipe Totec]

5. One dollar, one vote nt

[Xenotime]

28. That's why we need a more equal distribution of wealth.

[fascisthunter]

6. So... the Richer You are the Freer you are

got that Americans? Do you understand now what compromising your values and principles does. Our values in America are warped and twisted so much so, we now call money a certificate for free speech.

Slowly it erodes everything you had till it's too late for recourse. Now look at the Supreme court... you think they are ruling in favor of your right? They serve the rights of the wealthy and powerful, and the rest opf us can go to hell.

[Hugin]

10. Straight out of "Animal Farm", yes it is.... n/t

[loves_dulcinea]

21. yes, of course,

we all are equal, but some of us are more equal.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Sure. The court holds that money is an intrinsic aspect of political speech. This law

allowed certain candidates to raise more money if their opponents are wealthy. In doing so, it allows the donors and groups supporting the poor candidate more political speech than the donors and groups supporting the rich candidate. The purpose of campaign finance laws is not to limit the amount of money that may be spent; it is to limit the amount of influence that a donor may have--and this law was uneven in that regard. From that perspective, the Court's ruling is sensible.

That doesn't mean I like it, of course.

[LiberalFighter]

8. So it's okay for millionaires to go over the limit but all others must stay below?

[Igel]

24. Yep.

I think that's what it has to mean.

See post (7) (revised) for a reasonable account.

The wealthy candidate can speak as much as his money allows, or as much as donors to his campaign allow. But his contribution isn't limited; the limit stays on his donors, but was lifted for donors to his competitors.

Normally I can speak as much as my money allows, but in a campaign in which I'm not running my speech is curtailed. In a presidential year, to $2300 (donating directly to the candidate, more--$60k or something--the party). But by having restrictions on me, supporting candidate X, while restrictions are lifted on, say, my wife, supporting candidate Y, she can "speak" more than me.

It's one of these things where "speech" has an odd definition--spending--and where it's limited "for the common good", i.e., lest I say to much, not lest I say something dangerous or offensive. I find the entire enterprise ethically challenging and constitutionally challenged, but then again, I'm one of the arbiters of what the constitution is defined to say.

[Dogtown]

9. Probably naive

All media should be required to provide equal time, free of charge, to all legitimate candidates. That would cap off the ridiculous campaign excesses, and the focus on fund-raising over issues.

One federal regulation would level the playing field and considerably clean up our politics.


So, of course, it will never happen.

[razors edge]

13. Who gets to decide

who is legitimate and who isn't?

[Dogtown]

14. Would have to be

delineated in the ruling.

Maybe the parties, but I can see real problems with that.

Glad my hardest decision is coffee/coke whilst I type here. Hey, I just think up easy, simplistic solutions.

The goddam lawyers would fuck it all up, anyway.

[razors edge]

23. Goddam lawyer would fuck it up.

Absofuckinglutely.

I like the idea, but the control freaks would never have it.

[Dogtown]

30. You're right

If they don't make it convoluted, there's no way to cheat.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. A minimum level of support would have to be achieved.

Likely in the form of a petition.

[Dogtown]

29. Very good!

that might work.

[Blue_Tires]

11. the winners make the rules, the losers have to live by them...

at least economically speaking

[David__77]

12. Because personal expenditures for publicity could be contrued as "speech."

I'm very, very iffy on the whole "campaign finance reform" issue. I feel that it could easily be twisted to clamp down on progressive movements.

[baldguy]

15. Its based on the absurd premise that money = speech.

[Sal Minella]

17. Yes. This was difficult for me to comprehend when I first ran across it many years ago.

Letting the wealthy speak with money leaves the poor no voice at all.

[pattmarty]

16. Money=free speech or some such shit as that. I believe the......

.....Supreme Court had a ruling in the 70's on that deal where Money is the same as speech. Maybe some legal eagles here can elaborate on that.

[OneBlueSky]

18. you've heard the expression "money talks?" . . . well, legally it really does . . . n/t

.

[Baby Snooks]

19. The most basic of free speech rights...

Them that's got the gold make the rules and so the more gold you have, the more right to free speech you have. Particularly with regard to the 30 seconds you can buy on all the networks that your opponent can't.

Welcome to the oligarchy.

[Hekate]

20. Ah, yes. "The law in its majestice equality..." allows both rich and poor to donate equally

Sounds like an extension of Anatole France's observation that "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets ..."

Riiiight.

Hekate

[pattmarty]

27. Great quote that says everything you want to know about "America".

[fasttense]

25. Politicians dressed up in judges robes is what the dancing

supremes really are. They certainly aren't in anyway related to justice.