Another blow to campaign finance law

Yep, and while the media here soaks up every single second of the day about the recent shooting at Ft. Hood for ratings,:mad:this has gone without mention. And what's worse, the bbc is the one doing the reporting.:eek:
 
This case addressed limits on total contributions. It did not deal with the limit on contributions ot individual campaigns,which seems like the next domino to fall. The political class is in a panic over that, since it is their main protection against challengers.

Campaign finance laws are motivated by one thng and one thing only, incumbent protection. The dopey good government reform groups that were coopted into supporting it are either idiots or were motivated because of overblown fears that rich right wingers would take over.

The whole IRS scandal goes away if you eliminate these restrictions. The only reason people are pushing the envelope on using non-profits is they can't contribute directly to a campaign.
 
The only reason people try so hard to cover up murder is because it's illegal. Make it legal and all this law enforcement goes away.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
This case addressed limits on total contributions. It did not deal with the limit on contributions ot individual campaigns,which seems like the next domino to fall. The political class is in a panic over that, since it is their main protection against challengers.

Campaign finance laws are motivated by one thng and one thing only, incumbent protection. The dopey good government reform groups that were coopted into supporting it are either idiots or were motivated because of overblown fears that rich right wingers would take over.

The whole IRS scandal goes away if you eliminate these restrictions. The only reason people are pushing the envelope on using non-profits is they can't contribute directly to a campaign.
More...

Newt Gingrich: Today’s Campaign Finance Decision Doesn’t Go Far Enough

Our secretive, confusing system is already shaping up to make a mess of the 2016 presidential election.

The Supreme Court today delivered a big victory for the First Amendment over campaign finance laws that protect the entrenched political class at the expense of free speech.

All significant contributions should be reported publicly on the Internet in real-time.In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Court struck down a limit on the total amount individuals could contribute to all candidates or political committees in a two-year period. In effect, this means Americans can now legally donate to as many candidates as they like.

The law the Court struck down capped total direct contributions to candidates at $48,600, meaning you could give the maximum donation of $2,600 to just 18 candidates in two years before running up against the limit.

Supporters of such convoluted campaign finance laws act as if the restrictions defend the big against the small in politics. But who benefits more from rules that cap political giving — the incumbents, who have no trouble using their positions to raise money from far and wide, or their lesser known, lesser-funded challengers?

The Supreme Court in recent years has begun striking down these restrictions, which amount to incumbent protection laws, as violations of the First Amendment. After all, if the First Amendment protects any speech, it certainly ought to protect political speech — the kind most in need of protection from the politicians.

http://time.com/47632/newt-gingrich-campaign-finance/
 
JamesL said:
Newt Gingrich: Today’s Campaign Finance Decision Doesn’t Go Far Enough

Our secretive, confusing system is already shaping up to make a mess of the 2016 presidential election.

The Supreme Court today delivered a big victory for the First Amendment over campaign finance laws that protect the entrenched political class at the expense of free speech.

All significant contributions should be reported publicly on the Internet in real-time.In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Court struck down a limit on the total amount individuals could contribute to all candidates or political committees in a two-year period. In effect, this means Americans can now legally donate to as many candidates as they like.

The law the Court struck down capped total direct contributions to candidates at $48,600, meaning you could give the maximum donation of $2,600 to just 18 candidates in two years before running up against the limit.

Supporters of such convoluted campaign finance laws act as if the restrictions defend the big against the small in politics. But who benefits more from rules that cap political giving — the incumbents, who have no trouble using their positions to raise money from far and wide, or their lesser known, lesser-funded challengers?

The Supreme Court in recent years has begun striking down these restrictions, which amount to incumbent protection laws, as violations of the First Amendment. After all, if the First Amendment protects any speech, it certainly ought to protect political speech — the kind most in need of protection from the politicians.

http://time.com/47632/newt-gingrich-campaign-finance/
More...

The wealthy will not raise increase their donations to the new limits now, because they felt they were donating enough before. The little guy will donate more, however, so naturally his relative position is improved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top