• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justices strike down political donor limits

Erod

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,483
Reaction score
8,227
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Justices strike down political donor limits - CNN.com

(CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down current limits on the total amount individual donors can make to political campaigns.
At issue is whether those regulations in the Federal Election Campaign Act violate the First Amendment rights of contributors.

The 5-4 ruling could have an immediate impact on November's congressional midterm elections, and add another layer of high-stakes spending in the crowded political arena.
Click to expand...


File this under "duh", although you can never be quite sure with this Supreme Court.

The fact that it's 5-4 is astounding. That "four" don't even think you should have to present a valid ID to vote, but they want to tell valid voters what to do with their money.
 
In reference to politics I pray we never limit the 1st amendment
 
The SCOTUS system is very very very broken and needs more checks and balances. When the highest court in the nation, for which there is no appeal, is pretty much dictated by 9 people that almost always vote along ideological lines and not objective word of law that is a problem and not justice. The fact that most can predict the outcome will be 4-4 with the 1 "middle" person dictating the rulings points to how broken and unjust the SCOTUS system is. Just stack the court with libs/cons (common presidential tactic) and have whatever agenda you want approved of, letter of the law be damned.

Rant aside, I support the ruling.
 
Erod said:
Justices strike down political donor limits - CNN.com




File this under "duh", although you can never be quite sure with this Supreme Court.

The fact that it's 5-4 is astounding. That "four" don't even think you should have to present a valid ID to vote, but they want to tell valid voters what to do with their money.
Click to expand...

When did "the four" justices tell you what to do with your money? Nonsence.
 
As long as they are forced to disclose, i dont have a problem.

At least we'll know who our politicians belong to.
 
1750Texan said:
When did "the four" justices tell you what to do with your money? Nonsence.
Click to expand...

The fact they didn't want to uphold the first amendment says that they should have the right to tell you want to do with your money.
that fact is if someone wants to waste 10k giving it to a politician then let them waste their 10k.

that is their 1st amendment right of free speech, yet 4 justices voted against it.
 
What if...? said:
As long as they are forced to disclose, i dont have a problem.

At least we'll know who our politicians belong to.
Click to expand...

This i agree they should have to disclose who gives them over that amount of money.
 
Erod said:
Justices strike down political donor limits - CNN.com




File this under "duh", although you can never be quite sure with this Supreme Court.

The fact that it's 5-4 is astounding. That "four" don't even think you should have to present a valid ID to vote, but they want to tell valid voters what to do with their money.
Click to expand...

Terrible...

The reason we HAD limits was so that candidates would not be beholden to individuals.

EG. Sheldon Adelson is a casino mogul. He is strongly against online gambling because it cuts into his profit margins. He's only going to fund candidates who oppose online gambling. Now watch, GOP candidates will move to oppose online gambling.

Similar things are going to happen with the Democrats.

It's funny, the so called "originalists" are among the most activist judges in American history.
 
ludin said:
The fact they didn't want to uphold the first amendment says that they should have the right to tell you want to do with your money.
that fact is if someone wants to waste 10k giving it to a politician then let them waste their 10k.

that is their 1st amendment right of free speech, yet 4 justices voted against it.
Click to expand...

That was not the question before the court. FEC regulations on donations exist and have been ruled constituional. This is a specific limit. The court ruled on the constitutionality of that limit...not for or against free speech.

By your logic, all the other donation limitaions that are constitutional are for free speech.
 
we allow gerrymandering and unlimited money to purchase legislation, and then we bitch that the system is broken.

if we are going to let four or five guys from both sides buy congress, then every dime needs to be attached to a name, and that includes superpacs. there is no constitutional right to anonymously purchase government.
 
I don't care how much an individual donates, it's their money they can do what they want with it. However it must be individuals. As in: not superpacs, not corporations, not committees, none of those. Just individuals.
 
1750Texan said:
That was not the question before the court. FEC regulations on donations exist and have been ruled constituional. This is a specific limit. The court ruled on the constitutionality of that limit...not for or against free speech.

By your logic, all the other donation limitaions that are constitutional are for free speech.
Click to expand...

Yet those rulings went against the 1st amendment and free speech. i have no problem if someone wants to waste money on a politician campaign. I do agree that it should be registered as to who donated what.

if the limit violates free speech which evidently it did then voting against the ruling means you don't uphold the 1st amendment.

evidently putting limits on donations are not constitutional.
 
TeleKat said:
I don't care how much an individual donates, it's their money they can do what they want with it. However it must be individuals. As in: not super PACs, not corporations, not committees, none of those. Just individuals.
Click to expand...

Individuals are as capable of corrupting the system as PACS and corporations. The differentiation between the two is arbitrary, meaningless at least, because the end result is identical.
 
1750Texan said:
When did "the four" justices tell you what to do with your money? Nonsence.
Click to expand...

When they decided I couldn't donate whatever I want to the candidate(s) of my choice.

What would you see that as if not them telling me what I can do with my money?
 
TeleKat said:
it's their money.
Click to expand...

But it's your government.

And it's being bought and taken away from what it should be for, the people.

Unlimited donations by anything, an individual, a corporation is simply legalized corruption.
 
Mithros said:
Terrible...

The reason we HAD limits was so that candidates would not be beholden to individuals.

EG. Sheldon Adelson is a casino mogul. He is strongly against online gambling because it cuts into his profit margins. He's only going to fund candidates who oppose online gambling. Now watch, GOP candidates will move to oppose online gambling.

Similar things are going to happen with the Democrats.

It's funny, the so called "originalists" are among the most activist judges in American history.
Click to expand...

Why is that terrible?

It seems to me that a person should have every right to support a candidate that supports the things you like. As long as nothing illegal is going on, I don't see any reason to limit anyone's free speech.
 
shavingcollywob said:
When they decided I couldn't donate whatever I want to the candidate(s) of my choice.

What would you see that as if not them telling me what I can do with my money?
Click to expand...

The FEC decided...not the SC Justices. major disconnect.

Let me ask you? have you ever donated over $2,500.00 to a political campaign? if yes, let me borrow $5 bucks till Friday.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
But it's your government.

And it's being bought and taken away from what it should be for, the people.

Unlimited donations by anything, an individual, a corporation is simply legalized corruption.
Click to expand...

No, it's OUR government.

And that "OUR" includes people who make more money than you. I get that you might not like the candidates I support anymore than I like the candidates you support but that really is tough ****.
 
Jetboogieman said:
But it's your government.

And it's being bought and taken away from what it should be for, the people.

Unlimited donations by anything, an individual, a corporation is simply legalized corruption.
Click to expand...

Campaign donor laws will change nothing. Those with the money and the willpower to bribe elected officials will do it regardless of legality. Most of these deals are happening behind closed doors and in secret anyway.
 
Why is everyone up in arms about this? All this ruling does is change the number of candidates you can contribute too. Right now if you wanted to contribute $200 to every Congressional race in the country it is illegal as you exceed the maximum amount that can be donated to candidates. Now you can contribute the maximum allowed to any number of candidates.
If you want to control election buying you need to limit what a candidate can spend on an election, as there is no 1st Amendment right to run for office, not what individuals can spend voicing their views, which is what a contribution is considered.
 
shavingcollywob said:
No, it's OUR government.

And that "OUR" includes people who make more money than you.
Click to expand...

And that's fine, but they shouldn't be able to buy legislation.

This is extremely dangerous to a democratic system and it will destroy it.

It will turn America into a plutocracy.
 
shavingcollywob said:
No, it's OUR government.

And that "OUR" includes people who make more money than you. I get that you might not like the candidates I support anymore than I like the candidates you support but that really is tough ****.
Click to expand...

And when those people who make more money have greater input because of their money, it becomes more their government than ours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom