Mitch McConnell Will Ask Supreme Court To Scrap Campaign Contribution Limits Entirely

[Galraedia]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- On Oct. 8, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will argue to the Supreme Court that all campaign contribution limits should be eliminated and that candidates should be able to accept unlimited donations.

Although McConnell is not a party in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court has granted the Senate minority leader time during oral argument to present his views: that campaign contribution limits are an unconstitutional burden on free speech and that the court should give contribution limits a higher level of scrutiny than it has in the past. McConnell will be represented by lawyer Bobby Burchfield.

McCutcheon v. FEC challenges the aggregate limit on donations to federal candidates, political parties and political action committees, which bars an individual donor from giving more than $123,200 in total during the 2014 election cycle. McConnell wants to go much further by forcing courts to treat all campaign contribution limits as they treat campaign expenditure limits, which were found to be an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights in the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision.

The senator, a prominent opponent of campaign finance reforms, was the lead plaintiff 10 years ago in McConnell v. FEC, a Supreme Court challenge to the McCain-Feingold Act. Burchfield argued in that case as well.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court_n_4037577.html

[Dustlawyer]

1. They can't buy enough votes as it is?

To save our Democracy we need publicly funded elections or the wealthy will continue to drown out our votes! They take away poor and middle class free speech rights with all of their $$$$!

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

28. +1 n/t

[DallasNE]

30. Corruption Is Already One Of The Biggest Problems This Country Faces

And this would only amplify the corruption. Just take a look at the Governor of Virginia if you want to see the face of corruption and still he serves.

[gopiscrap]

2. Jesus Christ, as if our system isn't fucked up enough already

[Liberalynn]

3. This

[City Lights]

4. Isn't he cute!

Their greed knows no bounds.

[Buddha_of_Wisdom]

5. That alone is a disqualifier of the McCutheon v. FEC

and override CU and order all candidates to take public money only.

[ruffburr]

6. So billions of dollars-

Already in the end didn't help them win, And now they have destroyed what little standing they had with the electorate, Does that sound like a good investment to you? So since McConnell wants to bring this back to the S.C.O.T.U.S.It would be a great time to revisit their decision and repeal citizens united as the blunder that it has proven to be.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

29. That would be nice:

"It would be a great time to revisit their decision and repeal citizens united as the blunder that it has proven to be."

[brooklynite]

7. Before everyone yells and screams, ask yourself this...

What did Sheldon Adelson's spending get him?

What did the Kock Brother's spending get them?

I'm not supporting elimination of the limits, but I also don't think it's time to panic.

[Thor_MN]

12. A government shutdown?

Remove the Teabaggers that the Kochs and Adelson funded and we would not be where we are now...

[Jackpine Radical]

16. Kock money got us this…

[Wilms]

17. Not an even remotely OK assertion.

Meanwhile, there are only two parties that would benefit from unlimited donations: The Republican Party, and the Republican-Lite party...the latter, particularly, with regard to primaries.

So, I'm glad you are "not supporting elimination of the limits".

[Nimyth]

40. Maybe Not Panic

But time to do something to put and end to this
Bernie Sanders Explains How The Koch Brothers Are Keeping The Government Shut Down
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/04/bernie-sanders-explains-koch-brothers-keeping-government-shut.html

[WilliamPitt]

49. That was one election.

There will be others.

[enough]

8. Could it be that it would be better to remove all so called "restrictions,"

now that there are already no actual restrictions upon how much extremely wealthy people can donate to politicians?

It could be that the vestigial appearance of vestigial restrictions provides a certain cover of legitimacy to elections that keeps the people from finally accepting the true depths to which we have fallen.

If I thought that, at present, there were actually any true and meaningful restrictions on how much money any wealthy person can cause to flow into the political process, I might feel different about this.

I take great heart from the fact that so many people are applying for ACA health insurance, in spite of years and billions of money devoted to making people fear and despise ACA. Perhaps if the bald reality of the role of money in our elections would just all hang out for all to see, people might wake up. I think it's possible that what's happening with ACA is a whisper of a suggestion that people are not as asleep as we have assumed.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. McConnell is a lifelong foe of campaign finace reform

I've have never given him credit for good intentions. He is and has never been anything but a corporate whore (my apologies to streetwalkers and bar girls everywhere).

[ffr]

10. That's what's on his mind right at the moment?

How to win more elections by dollar proxy? Not providing representative services to his constituents and keeping the government running?

[Archae]

11. McConnell wants a return to the "good old days."

When politicians were bought and paid for, by the trusts.

During the "gilded age."

[Hydra]

13. Rec'ing for exposure n/t

[liberal N proud]

14. When you are the party of the rich, this tactic works

[cui bono]

15. For those times when $100mn from one person just isn't enough.

[L0oniX]

18. Mitch was saying this shit while his head was momentarily sticking out of a Koch chocolate starfish.

[LongTomH]

19. Only an amendment to the Constitution will solve this

McCutcheon v. FEC rests on the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling by the Supreme Court. Strictly speaking, the issue was specific provisions of a 1974 law limiting campaign contributions. In striking down those provisions, the Supremes essentially enshrined the idea that money, in the form of campaign contributions, was equivalent to Free Speech protected by the First Amendment.

That's why the We the People Amendment has, as its second clause, this language:

Section 2. Money is Not Free Speech

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

This was introduced on the floor of Congress as House Joint Resolution 29 on February 14, 2013.

This is the only way to solve this. Any legislation by Congress (even if we could get it through the House in the current climate), will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Go to Move to Amend.org to find out more.

[Hotler]

20. Good Lord!!!!! hahahahahahaha.........

Fucking Mitch! If I remember right Mitch and his friends are the same group of shit-stains that cry-bagged about frivolous lawsuits, activist judges, and trial lawyer's. Fucking Republicans can't win an election unless they buy, lie, cheat, steal, gerrymander, and, and, and.....
Yeah you go Mitch. You walk your scrawny ass in there and get down on your knees and pay your respects. And thank the activist judges for hearing your frivolous request and for not looking down on your trial attorney. You dick wad.

[unblock]

21. can't you just set up a corporation and funnel unlimited donations through it?

or do you have to find a legitimate corporation to launder it for you?

i didn't think there were limits on corporations.

and if there are, can't you just repeat through 100 different ones?

[Rebellious Republican]

22. Well hell yeah, why not?

They do not fucking exist anyway, might as well just go ahead make it public fucking knowledge. Boy I sure am enjoying using a word I do not use often, FUCK.

Fuck it, fuck them, fuck everything, fuck anybody, fuck, fuck , fuck!!!!!! Does it sound like I am ready to FUCK?

RR

[Frustratedlady]

23. Mitch getting an itch he might be in trouble come election time?

That is one campaign I will be donating to, with the hope that she is able to beat his tail out of Washington, DC.

[alfredo]

31. We will make that an issue here in Ky

[groundloop]

24. Equating $$$$$$$ to speech is such utter bullshit

Little by little by little the 1% is corrupting the bill of rights to their advantage.

[yurbud]

25. the Republicans will need every penny since demographics aren't in their favor

and getting worse for them all the time.

The GOP will probably die with the last white person old enough to fondly remember the days of Jim Crow.

[Rebellious Republican]

46. Not to worry, the Koch brothers have more money than God.

Thanks for the racist angle, I am one of those old white people from the south, I do not plan on dying anytime soon! I guess you forget that white people died protecting black peoples rights in the south.

The KKK kills three civil rights activists

Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney are killed by a Ku Klux Klan lynch mob near Meridian, Mississippi. The three young civil rights workers were working to register black voters in Mississippi, thus inspiring the ire of the local Klan. The deaths of Schwerner and Goodman, white Northerners and members of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), caused a national outrage.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-kkk-kills-three-civil-rights-activists

[yurbud]

47. I remember that. I meant the subset of white folks who miss Jim Crow (some of whom might live up

North).

[Nye Bevan]

26. I support the Citizens United decision but I do not support this.

If a corporation or union wants to spend its own money publishing a book or making a movie, I see that as free speech protected by the First Amendment, even if the book or movie happens to say mean things about someone who is running for office.

But I do not see how handing over wads of cash to politicians is constitutionally protected.

[Blue_Tires]

56. What was worth supporting about the CU decision?

Most of us were arguing back then that Mitch's plan was the ultimate goal, despite the ACLU and DU spinners....

[Spirochete]

27. That's the main priority to him at this time?

With the government shut down, everyone losig their jobs?

Geez, I sure hope that Lundegard lady really kicks his ass in the next election.

Or is that why he's pushing this now?

[alfredo]

32. We will do our best.

[cstanleytech]

33. I have to agree lift the cap because it doesnt work

because the wealthy are still buying politicians off right now they just use multiple PACs to do it with.
Instead do away with anonymous campaign donations over 200 dollars and any anonymous donations over 200 dollars to the PACs and make it so they have to release who supplied the money 30 days before they may use one single dime of it.

[sinkingfeeling]

34. Why can't I get time to speak to SCOTUS about it? I also have no

direct ties to the case.

[Octafish]

35. Taking advantage of the 5-4 Legacy of Pruneface

[lonestarnot]

36. Old fucking wrinkled dog of a turtle.

[Prophet 451]

37. And that would be actual Fascism

Mussolini (who invented fascism) once defined it as the "union of state and corporate power". Citizens United already pushed the US dangerously close to fascism but doing away with teh limits would allow corporations and the ultrarich to just outright buy politicians, pushing the US into full fascism.

[Rebellious Republican]

38. I will go one step further...

plu·toc·ra·cy noun \plü-ˈtä-krə-sē\
: government by the richest people

: a country that is ruled by the richest people

: a group of very rich people who have a lot of power

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plutocracy

We are living it!

[cstanleytech]

44. Just about every government is in essence a plutocracy.

And since thats unlikely to change the best imo we can hope for atm is a change to the ability for the donations to be made anonymously so that people might be made more aware exactly who has bought the politician off and how much it cost.

[Rebellious Republican]

45. I think I understand your post.

[marble falls]

39. He just doesn't get it. A moraly bankrupt and ethically challenged twit.

[blkmusclmachine]

41. GOP: Let the RIGHT people vote!

Everybody else, well ...... NAH!

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

42. I am going to request that they.....

.....scrap McConnell.

[redwitch]

43. Mitch McConnell, Champion of the stinking rich and extremely powerful.

How repulsive.

[dougolat]

48. The RULE OF GOLD beats the GOLDEN RULE, yet again

Money always buys influence, but Citizens United made it official.
This would just rub it in.

[Hubert Flottz]

50. And by a five to four vote the SCOTUS

will probably do just that.

[burnsei sensei]

51. He's a desperate man; his party has lost its authority.

nt

[Sunlei]

52. when are Americans going to take a look at even local Gov paychecks & benefits? corruption!!

Even some local Govs are out of control corrupt, to say nothing of State and Federal politicians. No one watches them, some have been caught stealing millions of taxpayer money. Like that city controller with quarter horses who stole millions!! from one small town.!

That's bribe money from 'donations' AND our State and Federal taxpayer money they stuff into their private pockets.

[RKP5637]

53. These F'en people like this need to be all thrown out of office. They need to be

run out of DC. They are absolutely worthless in serving the needs of this country, all they are interested in is more $$$$$ for themselves and their cronies. When, are the majority of Americans going to get a fucken clue and wake up to what is going on. They don't give a fuck about the majority of citizens in the US.

[hatrack]

54. Good to see he's focused on what really matters . . .

[BeyondGeography]

55. We want an America where everyone will be at the mercy of rich idiots