U.S. Supreme Court to revisit campaign finance limits

[Judi Lynn]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NancyBlueINOklahoma (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Reuters

U.S. Supreme Court to revisit campaign finance limits

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:13 GMT

Source: reuters // Reuters

* Case brought by Alabama businessman

* Republican National Committee involved in challenge

By Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON, Feb 19 (Reuters) - Three years after easing limits on corporate political donations in the Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to consider whether to lift caps on how much individuals may contribute to candidates.

In a brief order, the court agreed to hear McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a challenge by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee to limits on aggregate donations over a two-year period.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in September had rejected McCutcheon's argument that capping donations violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But if the Supreme Court disagrees, it could use the case to change part of its landmark 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, that upheld such caps, which are sums in the mid-five figures.


Read more: http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/detail.dot?id=7f104d70-75c1-498f-841b-fae54b18e474

[denverbill]

1. Does anyone actually want to wait for the actual 5-4 decision to come out?

Although maybe I'm wrong and the Supreme's will decide that small donations are illegal and that only donations greater than $100K are allowed. But since they've already decided corporations can give unlimited amounts, no way in hell are they going to allow limits for individuals, who are actually real living persons.

[Mz Pip]

3. I never understood why corporations

could spend whatever they wanted but people are limited. Seems if Mz Pip could contribute only $2500 then Exxon should have the same limits.

Right now corporations have more power than individuals. It would be nice if the court ruled that corporations should have the same limits as individuals but u don't see that happening.

Unlimited donations for whoever or whatever you are. That's sadly how I see this playing out.

[unblock]

4. corporations can circumvent limits anyway because they can "breed" easier than humans.

want to limit exxonmobil corporation to $2,500 per campaign?

fine.

exxonmobil north sea exploration and production will contribute $2,500.
exxonmobil gulf sea exploration and production will contribute $2,500.
exxonmobil australia exploration and production will contribute $2,500.
exxonmobil whozeewhats oilcans, inc. will contribute $2,500.

you get the idea.



personally i think corporate contributions to political campaigns are ludicrous. the individual owners can already contribute, why should corporations get to contribute anything more, nevermind unlimited amounts.

[unblock]

5. more to the point, if mz pip is limited, why should mz pip, inc. be unlimited?

if you wanted to, you could create a corporation, invests vast sums, donate it all to your preferred politician, and hey, now you can sell your company's net operating losses for tax purposes to offset your contributions!

[Nye Bevan]

9. Corporate campaign contributions to candidates for federal office are illegal.

So I'm a little confused by your assertion that "corporations can give unlimited amounts", when in actual fact, corporations can give zero.

[Left Coast2020]

2. Could this be a good sign?

[davidpdx]

6. The pessimist in me sees this only getting worse

How I don't know. I just have a bad feeling about it. The five corporatist judges are going to somehow expand Citizens United to allow corporations to have even more control over our elections.

[leftyohiolib]

7. yup they lost the election and the vote rigging didnt seem to help so welcome to plan b

[davidpdx]

8. Plan b? LOL

No, I think they are at least on plan h or i by now. I'm sure some of their other stunts we don't know about failed as well.

[OKNancy]

10. duplicate topic - locking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014402818