GOP asks Supreme Court to lift fundraising limits

[sabra]

Source: USA Today

Legal top gun Ted Olson just told USA TODAY that he's filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on behalf of the Republican National Committee in a case that challenges federal limits on party fundraising.

At issue: Whether the GOP's national fundraising apparatus can be put to work to raise funds for state legislative races. As we told you in a story today, both major political parties are gearing up to try to win state houses this year because in most states, it's the state legislatures that will redraw congressional district lines after this year's Census.

Campaign finance laws strictly limit the sources and amounts of donations national political parties can raise for congressional and presidential races, but the Republican National Committee argues those limits shouldn't apply if the contests involved are for state legislative seats.

In a decision last month, a three-judge federal panel didn't buy that argument, but federal law gives parties in campaign finance disputes the right to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which Olson has now done.

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/04/gop-wants-supreme-court-to-ok-unlimited-fundraising/1

[onehandle]

1. Onehandle asks the Obama administration to institute public funding for all elections.

It's now or never.

[AndyA]

2. Public funding is the only way to get good people in office.

I'm sick of the millionaires running for office just because they can.

I want the little guy or gal who has no money, but has compassion for others and a strong sense of right and wrong, and doesn't care what people do in their bedrooms as long as it's mutually agreed on, and won't be compromised before they're even in office.

There's more, but that would be a great start. The best people that should be representing us don't stand a chance now, because they don't have the money. So...once again...the almighty dollar determines who gets in office and who doesn't.

It's a lousy system, and the results of that system are very apparent today.

[No Elephants]

7. Years ago, I worried about people who used their own money to run. Now, I'm

much more worried about those who depend on donations from special interests. I'd rather see a Kennedy or a Grayson or a Jay Rockefeller running any day of the week, and twice on Sunday, than a Lieberman.

[Mr. Sparkle]

3. what the GOP wants, the right wing corporatist Supreme Court shall grant.

It is hard not to see them getting this, or at the very least a slightly watered down version.

[DesertDiamond]

4. ??? But aren't we beating them in fundraising right now? A raised limit at this point

looks to only benefit Democrats.
Public Funding of candidates - YES!!! The ONLY way to have a true Democracy.

[cascadiance]

5. But what sort of Democrats? the Blanche Lincoln's, Ben Nelson's, Max Baucus's?

Even Obama arguably is being "compromised" by the status quo lobbying spending.

Whether the money is spent on Dems or Republicans, it still is a problem for people looking for congressional representation from either party.

We NEED public campaign financing.

[No Elephants]

9. Public funding will work well only if the candidates can't use anything BUT public funding.

No ads run for them by their Party or by 527's. No loopholes.

But, since the Citizens' United decision, that would require a Constitutional amendment.

[tanyev]

6. Gosh, has Michael Steele spent ALL their money?

[TDGoddard]

8. When you can't follow the money

It's worse than that. There's a good chance contributions will be secret again like pre-Watergate days.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/04/06/what_happens_when_you_cant_follow_the_money.html

[Lorien]

10. Simple argument for capping campaign spending: If a candidate can't run an effective

campaign on a tight budget, she or he can't govern on a tight budget. Even repugs should be able to get behind that idea.