Supreme Court strikes down aggregate limit on campaign contributions

Today the Supreme Court ruled that you should be able give the base contribution to as many candidates as you like with no aggregate limit applied.

In the 2011–2012 election cycle, appellant McCutcheon contributed to 16 different federal candidates, complying with the base limits ap- plicable to each. He alleges that the aggregate limits prevented him from contributing to 12 additional candidates and to a number of noncandidate political committees. He also alleges that he wishes to make similar contributions in the future, all within the base limits. McCutcheon and appellant Republican National Committee filed a complaint before a three-judge District Court, asserting that the ag- gregate limits were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The District Court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the Government’s motion to dismiss. Assuming that thebase limits appropriately served the Government’s anticorruption in- terest, the District Court concluded that the aggregate limits sur- vived First Amendment scrutiny because they prevented evasion of the base limits.

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

893 F. Supp. 2d 133, reversed and remanded. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE SCALIA, JUSTICE KENNE-
DY, and JUSTICE ALITO, concluded that the aggregate limits are inva- lid under the First Amendment.

Comments

I thought this was an April fools joke

from a procrastinator. Instead, it's another chip away at democracy. This ruling, by itself, isn't surprising. But it's probably a prelude to elimination of all caps.

We have to find a way to "tag" candidates who are largely funded by outside money, Democrats and Republicans alike. Until such money becomes a toxic scarlet letter, we're going to be scourge on democracy.

The joke is on us

....but it isn't a fake joke. It is very, very real.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

I fully expect ....

... for a big-money backed politician to simply come out and say "Here's who's paying for me. Whatever I do is directed by them because it's good for you," and then start a court case that would let the Supremes get rid of all bribery and corruption laws.

The inexorable march

toward a plutocracy continues apace.

-------------------------------------------------------
"What I see from the folks who are opposing our agenda is whining coming from losers." -- Thom Tillis

We're already there, really

As Madge the Manicurist used to say, "You're soaking in it."

Ha!

I'm pretty sure you're not a college student with that reference! :) It took me a minute to comb the cobwebs for that one.



***************************
Vote Democratic, the ass you save may be your own.

And also remember

that the reaction to being told "you're soaking in it" by Madge was a horrified gasp and reflexive removal of the hand from the bowl. :-)

-------------------------------------------------------
"What I see from the folks who are opposing our agenda is whining coming from losers." -- Thom Tillis

Old enough

I'm old enough to remember when Watergate was just a hotel in Washington.