Citizens United 2.0? Supreme Court could kill limits on political donations

[Galraedia]

Source: Raw Story

Three years after its historic Citizens United decision upended America’s campaign finance system, the Supreme Court appears poised to allow even more cash to flood into US politics.

In one of the most highly anticipated cases of a judicial term that got underway this week, the US high court on Tuesday heard the case of Shaun McCutcheon, a wealthy Alabama businessman who wants to make political campaign contributions exceeding the $123,200 allowed by the federal government.

If the court rules in his favor, Americans could see an end to restrictions on campaign contributions by individuals — much as the court did away with them in 2010 for institutions with its Citizens United ruling.

At present, US election laws impose restrictions on the amount an individual can contribute, limiting how much one can give to any single candidate, as well as the aggregate amount of contributions in a given election cycle.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/08/citizens-united-2-0-supreme-court-could-kill-limits-on-political-donations/

[FirstLight]

1. this soiunds bad...

...more like really terrifying if you think about it...

[Judi Lynn]

2. So ugly, so underhanded. More freedom of speech for the wealthy.

No one will hear the ordinary citizen again, unless radical measures are taken.

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Limit the wattage on their megaphones.

All of us have the right of free speech, including political speech. Money is an amplifier of that right, it is a megaphone. With enough money, a very rich person can out-shout all the rest of us. The politicians will be beholden to the wealthy donors even more than they are now. We are not limiting what the rich can say, only how loudly they can say it.

Keep the limits in place.

[C_U_L8R]

4. Money is not free speech.

It is the simplest concept yet the right wing supremes just don't get it.

[tk2kewl]

5. nothing "free" about it if you have to buy it

[sulphurdunn]

6. The Supreme Court

exists to protect and expand the prerogatives of wealth and power. The few and short periods of American history where it has been otherwise were anomalies soon corrected.

[Triana]

7. More here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023808447

and here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023807412

[jsr]

8. Drop the pretenses and replace "one person, one vote" with "one dollar, one vote"

[Fearless]

9. How else could an increasingly small portion of the nation

Control everything?????

[Judi Lynn]

10. Supreme Court appears divided in campaign finance case arguments

Supreme Court appears divided in campaign finance case arguments
By David Savage 12:36 p.m. EDT, October 8, 2013

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on whether to give wealthy Americans even more clout in Congress by lifting the legal limit on how much they can give to candidates and their parties, with the outcome seeming likely to depend on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Through most of the arguments in case, the justices sounded as though they were closely split along the usual ideological lines. Conservatives spoke of political free speech while liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg worried that only the voice of the “super-affluent” will be heard in Washington.

Roberts said he was wary of giving donors the freedom to write checks for millions of dollars to party officials. However, he also said he did not see why individuals cannot give significant contributions to dozens of candidates, which current limits would not allow.

Three years ago, a majority of the justices, led by Roberts, said in the Citizens United case that "independent" spending on elections was a form of free speech protected by the Constitution. That ruling struck down long-standing bans on election such spending by corporations and unions.

More:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/la-pn-supreme-court-campaign-finance-20131008,0,1962730.story#sthash.4Jhm2opE.dpuf

[CrispyQ]

11. How long until corporations are allowed to vote?

I believe that's where this is headed.

[Judi Lynn]

12. High court wary of campaign contribution limits

High court wary of campaign contribution limits
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press | October 8, 2013 | Updated: October 8, 2013 3:11pm




WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to free big individual donors to give more money to political candidates in the court's first major campaign finance case since the justices took the lid off of independent spending in 2010.

The court's conservative justices, who formed the majority in 2010's Citizens United case, voiced varying degrees of skepticism about the limits on what individuals may give candidates, political parties and political action committees in a two-year federal election cycle.

The argument in a packed courtroom that included members of Congress gave supporters of stringent campaign finance regulations little reason for optimism that the court would sustain limits that were enacted 40 years ago in response to Watergate-era abuses. The caps were intended to reduce the potential for political corruption.

Chief Justice John Roberts, possibly the pivotal vote in the case, said that telling an individual he can give the legal maximum of $2,600 per election to only a handful of candidates for Congress "seems to me a very direct restriction" on First Amendment rights.

More:
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/High-court-wary-of-campaign-contribution-limits-4877273.php?cmpid=usw

[tclambert]

13. Because Citizens United wasn't stupid enough, and this Court wants to set the all-time record

for stupidest Supreme Court.

Breaking News: The Roberts Court just voted 5-4 in favor of Derp in the case of Derp v. WTF.

[drmeow]

14. I seem to recall that

post Citizen's United, Kennedy (naively) expressed surprise about the way it was (mis)used. I suspect that there is a good chance he may not swing to the right this time around, potentially making this a 5-4 decision the other way. At least, I hope so.