• 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

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.

Government of the richest, by the richest, for the richest. sigh.. Candidates used to have to court people who could donate thousands of dollars. Now why bother? Just court the people who can donate millions.


Also, people went to jail for this stuff. It used to be illegal. Defending a practice that used to be illegal because it's now not isn't really logical.
 
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.

No one is buying legislation. They're supporting candidates however they choose.
 
And four justices upheld that act.

No offense but do you even have any idea what's being discussed here?

How is voting in opposition... "upholding" an act? At best, the Justices held that the limit was constitutional. That's it.

Flip it, twirl it, and bounce it any way you wish...
 
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.

I too support the ruling, however, to your larger point perhaps what the US needs is something similar to Canada's "Notwithstanding Clause" that was adopted a couple of decades ago with our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order to get provincial approval of the document, the provinces wanted to ensure that appointed justices to our Supreme Court would not be the final arbiters of legislative rule.

As in the US, our Supreme Court justices are appointed by the Prime Minister and go through a screening process but that process is not as difficult as in the US. As a result, there was concern in the provinces that a Supreme Court stacked by political masters at the federal level could override the will of the people in a province or for that matter the will of the people at the federal level. As a result, the Notwithstanding clause allows the federal or provincial government to adopt legislation that is immune from Supreme Court interference. If the Supreme Court rules a piece of legislation unconstitutional, the body that adopted it can pass legislation that basically says "notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, the legislation stands and will be enforced".

Under our Constitution, governments at the federal and provincial levels must hold elections at least every five years, so the Notwithstanding clause has a lifespan of five years, allowing a newly formed government to either let the notwithstanding legislation lapse or reinforce it for another five years - the legislature in question can reinforce the clause an unlimited number of times.

It should be noted that this clause does not apply to all parts of the constitution but only to those related to particular rights and freedoms.

In the case related in this thread, as an example, if such a notwithstanding clause was in place, the US Congress and the President could pass and sign legislation that overruled the US Supreme Court decision for a period of time. In so doing, the issue may become an election issue going forward and would be more readily one where the majority of the voting public could express their opinions, not just the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.

In the almost 3 decades this clause has been in place in Canada, it has been rarely used. Not sure how it would be used in the more volatile US political system.
 
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.

Did the limits ever change anything? NO.
 
Money is not speech, regardless of what the justices say about it. The limit on political contributions should be zero, the numbers of political ads should be zero, and any candidate should speak for themselves.
 
You think flooding the political system with unlimited amounts of money has no effect on legislative outcomes?

We got Obamacare didn't we? :lamo
 
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.

My perspective may not be yours, but for me there are very few politicians who are corrupted by monies donated to their campaigns for election/reelection. It is the far more shady, shadowy transactions that take place outside the limelight - the upgrade to someones home or property, the under the table cash in an envelope trade for favours, the access to corporate travel/vacation spots, etc.

I couldn't name a single politician who was convicted of breach of trust or other crimes as it relates to campaign donations but I could name plenty who got busted for under the table payoffs, stock information, etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
No one is buying legislation. They're supporting candidates however they choose.

Because politicians feel no obligation to vote for the legislation desired by their donors.
 
Money is not speech, regardless of what the justices say about it. The limit on political contributions should be zero, the numbers of political ads should be zero, and any candidate should speak for themselves.

So an ad for Ford by Ford is not Ford speaking about it's product?
 
Yep.

Handing over every American on a silver platter to the HMO's because they paid for it.

Now what you got?

Louisiana Purchase, Corn Husker Kickback.......
 
And when those people who make more money have greater input because of their money, it becomes more their government than ours.

Have you looked at tax distribution in this country?

Politicians don't win elections by raising the most money. They win elections by getting the most votes and right now the biggest asset Democrats have are the low information voters who can be whipped up into a frenzy by the idea that the wealthy are buying the government and not paying their fair share. The wealthy have always had more money to donate than you and that hasn't stopped Democrats from pushing more and more onto the backs of fewer and fewer. The Founding Fathers warned of tyranny of the majority and that's exactly where we find ourselves today.
 
Have you looked at tax distribution in this country?

Politicians don't win elections by raising the most money. They win elections by getting the most votes

I don't know how one would even begin to quantify the naivete of this statement. Are you aware of the purpose that money raised is used for?
 
Have you looked at tax distribution in this country?

Politicians don't win elections by raising the most money. They win elections by getting the most votes and right now the biggest asset Democrats have are the low information voters who can be whipped up into a frenzy by the idea that the wealthy are buying the government and not paying their fair share. The wealthy have always had more money to donate than you and that hasn't stopped Democrats from pushing more and more onto the backs of fewer and fewer. The Founding Fathers warned of tyranny of the majority and that's exactly where we find ourselves today.

Right, and there are no low information Republican voters who would vote for their party if they were running Beelzebub.

What you're assuming here is that the Democratic Party is really the party of the poor people. Do you think that is really true?
 
Did the limits ever change anything? NO.

I don't know for certain, but it was never as if reformers really ever made the argument that "times were better in the past, but not enough has been done yet." It seemed to me that perhaps we were shuffling the money from one avenue to the other with each reform, but somehow it still reached the political process in the way reformers did not want. It was as if it depended on which game the rich donors had to play to get the money where they wanted it.
 
As long as they are forced to disclose, i dont have a problem.

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

3151470215_sponsorsuit_xlarge.jpeg
 
Without money you can speak. You can say whatever is on your mind.

Ok. So you want to let the media own the legislators because they can offer free ads to whoever they choose to run the country?
 
Have you looked at tax distribution in this country?

Politicians don't win elections by raising the most money. They win elections by getting the most votes and right now the biggest asset Democrats have are the low information voters who can be whipped up into a frenzy by the idea that the wealthy are buying the government and not paying their fair share. The wealthy have always had more money to donate than you and that hasn't stopped Democrats from pushing more and more onto the backs of fewer and fewer. The Founding Fathers warned of tyranny of the majority and that's exactly where we find ourselves today.

Money is the avenue through which one most likely gets votes. Money is spent to buy information distribution. Your voter may not be as steerable without targeted campaigning.
 
Without money you can speak. You can say whatever is on your mind.

And you can also speak with money, which is why it is considered protect speech. Do you disagree with poor people pooling their money to support a candidate or are you suggesting only those able to self finance a campaign be allowed to run for office?
 
Back
Top Bottom