• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

US Supreme Court affirms prosecution of super PAC donors using reasonable person test

P

pbmaise

Check out this article on how the reasonable person test still applies to campaign contributions.

Why the high court deserves some credit | Campaigns & Elections

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeals of groups claiming they didn't have to follow the laws.

Courts confirm it is not possible to claim clear campaign ads are okay since they lacked "magic words" or were not "expressed advocacy". These ads fail the reasonable person test.

A reasonable person looking at excessive contributions to a super PAC clearly understands what the money is given for. This makes it a campaign contribution as if given directly and subject to limits.

This isn't a "rant". Rants are not backed up with 150 page lawsuits filed in U.S. Federal Court that now sit in front of a 3-judge panel.

1:12-cv-00004 Maise v. Political Action Committees-Class I et al
Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, presiding

Who are you going to believe?
.....A super PAC asking you for money and telling you it is okay? or
.....Almost every reasonably sane person in this country?

I know a bit about this subject. I wrote that lawsuit and am the Plaintiff that seeks to take all super PACs and their donors to Court in one tidy class action suit.

See you in court.

Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff
 
Back
Top Bottom