Supreme Court Strikes Down Political Donations Cap
Read Time:1 Minute, 7 Second
The conservative controlled Supreme Court struck yet another blow to common sense today, ruling that it is unconstitutional to cap the total amount a person could give to candidates, political parties, and PACs.
Watergate-era laws have long capped the amount of money any one person could give to a candidate. For example, Congress had set the cap at $123,200, for the 2013-2014 cycle, with no more than $48,600 going to political campaigns, the AP explains. But in a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the rule violated the First Amendment.
The ruling does not strike down the limit on how much a person can give to any given candidate, only how much they can give overall. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argues that these overall limits don’t further the government’s interest in avoiding quid-pro-quo corruption, and hence can’t be regulated. Roberts’ opinion was only backed by three of his colleagues, according to SCOTUSBlog.
The less than brilliant Clarence Thomas voted with them, but wrote a separate opinion saying that he wanted to also overturn the landmark Buckley v. Valeo campaign finance case.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Evolution: “survival of the fittest”
Republicans: “survival of the richest”
Supreme Court: see Republicans
Ha! Well done indeed Marsha 🙂
This is sounding more and more like the .01 percenters are going to get to rule the country after all. It reminds me more and more of old Rome. I guess next they will be dividing us up as slaves to control. The really sad part about this is that their money would not make any difference except for the fact that so many people are too stupid to realize they are being manipulated by the big money people. Between the Koch brothers and Adeleson they may well own the government. “Talking ’bout a revolution, oh no, we don’t want to change the world.” Just maybe straighten ours out.
You know what I was just thinking about this. If I wanted to pay to have someone screw me, I would not be paying for someone like Louie Gohmert or David Vitter. I would go more with Michael Fassbender or Ian Somerhalder. Just saying is all.
That’s right, the more candidates you corrupt, the less likely you are to corrupt a whole political party or two. Makes sense if you stand on your head while smoking crack.
Yes, the very rich are different from you and me. Their votes count. Ours don’t.
So very true Glenn. The more money you have the more influence you can buy, and more influence equals more votes even if you don’t directly cast them.
I wish a couple of these old farts would retire, especially the dumbest man ever to sit on the court: Clarence Thomas. That was Obama could TRY to get a liberal appointed.