McCutcheon (and McConnel) vs FEC and what little remains of American Democracy

[LongTomH]

While most of us are focused on the shutdown, a landmark case that may destroy what's left of the fragile American Democracy is being decided by the Supreme Court.

From Huffington Post: McCutcheon vs FEC: Supreme Court Skeptical of Campaign Contribution Limits:

WASHINGTON -- A slim majority of Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical Tuesday that the federal government may cap the total amount of money that individual donors can give to political candidates running for federal office, in a case that could have a massive impact on the campaign finance system.

In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the high court is set to decide whether the limits on aggregate federal campaign contributions -- the overall cap currently stands at $123,200 per donor for the 2014 election cycle -- are unconstitutional because they place a burden on the free speech rights of donors.

Shaun McCutcheon, the man bringing the case, only seeks to give the maximum individual donation to more candidates. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is trying to use the case as a vehicle to persuade the Supreme Court to dismantle contribution limits altogether.

Court observers were keeping a close eye on Chief Justice John Roberts, who most campaign finance reform advocates see as the only hope of upholding the aggregate contribution limits. Roberts joined the majority in a 2006 decision holding that contribution limits were constitutional.

Omigawd!!! Our hopes for saving what's left of a democracy are actually dependent on the most corrupt Chief Justice in modern US history?

From the Washington Post: Everything you need to know about McCutcheon vs. FEC provides a 'Cliff's Notes' guide to McCutcheon.

From Common Dreams: Hell No! to Citizens United 2.0:

The Supreme Court of the United States is poised to continue dismantling restrictions on money in politics in a new case that begins today: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

............//snip

The Court could still leave in place a $2,600 maximum on donations to a single candidate, but could allow a single donor to give that amount to limitless candidates and, more importantly, remove limits to political parties – who then spend money on behalf of candidates.

This course would require SCOTUS to revisit another landmark ruling. The 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case made the distinction between limits on direct contributions and campaign expenditures. The Buckley ruling established that direct contributions to political candidates and their parties can be restricted, but prohibits such restrictions on campaign expenditures made in support of a candidate or cause. Overturning this direct contribution restriction is the primary goal for the RNC, whose attorney, James Bopp (also the lead attorney in the Citizens United case), has publicly advocated for the stronger political parties it would create.

.....................//snip

If the majority agrees this could take the “money is speech” Court-created doctrine to its extreme, and potentially set a precedent that could culminate in not only unlimited spending by individuals in federal elections, but also overturn state and local laws meant to level the playing field by limiting the amount that an individual, corporation, or other entity can contribute to political campaigns.