High court strikes down 'millionaire's amendment'

[EV_Ares]

Just like Barack says; Campaign Finance Law is broken.
----------------------

The move against the fundraising exceptions for wealthy candidates is the latest blow to McCain-Feingold reforms.

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the so-called "millionaire's amendment" of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, saying it violated free-speech protections.

In a 5-to-4 ruling, the high court said Congress cannot use federal election laws to disadvantage candidates who choose to use their own money to run for a seat in Congress.

The idea behind the law was to prevent a wealthy candidate from using massive personal spending in a campaign to drown out the voices of other candidates. It was also intended to counter the impression that seats in Congress can be purchased.

rest of the article @ link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0627/p25s10-usju.html

[ColbertWatcher]

1. I saw that and still don't understand it. Can anyone 'splain? n/t

[KharmaTrain]

3. It Was Supposed To Help Local Candidates

Say you're Candidate A...a working Joe trying to run on small donations...no more than $2500 per person...that puts you at a significant advantage against someone who can pull out the checkbook and self finance. This provision was to enable those who face a millionaire to expand the ways they can raise money and to limit how much of his own money Candidate B can spend. It's the limit the court struck down.

The intention was to stop a fat cat from literally buying an office by limiting the money they could spend on themselves and help out the other candidates...a good concept, but I'm not surprised the court ruled it unconstitutional.

[ColbertWatcher]

4. Okay, I guess the name is confusing.

I would think something like anti-Millionaire or something else.

[KharmaTrain]

7. It Is...Why It Was Ruled The Way It Was

The Kennedy loves himself them millionaires. He's all that matters on this court right now...the most powerful man on the damn planet.

The ammendment was intended to prevent a millionaire from buying all the commercial time and all but drown out another opponent with an unlimited checkbook. That's how several members of the House and Senate won their seats and a big criteria that is asked of anyone running for public office (especially if you're a repugnican). The intention, as good as it was, was to put caps on how over-the-top a person could go with their own money and freeze out an opponent. The answer is in other ways...such as limiting the length of campaigns and removing the culture in the beltway that has made elections a fulltime cottage industry. Mark Penn needs to get a real job.

Cheers...

[ShadowLiberal]

9. Wrong, the millionaries amendment helps poor candidates, doesn't restrict self funded candidates

You're wrong when you say that it limits how much of their own money a super rich candidate can spend getting elected. The millionaires amendment merely allows a poor challenger who can't fund their own campaign to receive triple the donations from an individual then usually allowed. It also makes it so that donations to the poor candidate don't count in the overall limit of how much money you as an individual can donate to politicians in a year.

The millionaires amendment kicks in as soon as the rich candidate spends something like $350,000 dollars of their own money on the campaign.

This is a dark day for the common man's dream of going to Washington DC, we should start attacking the republicans on the Supreme Court by saying the court has aligned itself with billionaires and against the dreams of the common man who might want to run for political office.

[EV_Ares]

5. The way I understand it as far as its purpose was for someone like

Bloomberg who could finance his own campaign with his own money. That basically being called buying the presidency.

To me it could be seen also as not beholden to anyone; just like in Barack's case where over 90% of his money is coming from individuals donating under $100. He also is not beholden to any large corporation, etc.

Unlike McSame who is beholden to lobbyists, corporations, large donors, etc.

How do you see it?

[ColbertWatcher]

6. Yeah, I got it now, thank you. n/t

[dems_rightnow]

2. "It was also intended to counter the impression that seats in Congress can be purchased. "

Ha ha! They're all purchased.

[EV_Ares]

8. You got that right, eom.