BREAKING: Justices strike down political donor limits

[General Zod]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/politics/ ... index.html

(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.

So there you have it. Democracy's officially a commodity now. What's the worst that could happen?

[Mr Bean]

Can I hear two million dollars, two million dollars for this genuine American, United States Senator!? Do I hear two dollars for this only lightly used American Senator? Get your own legislation into law, score the best seats at political events and get your name on a state park, these are just some of the benefits of owning your own genuine and certified American Senator. A steal at two million dollars! Final Call, Last Bid, Final Call, sold to the nice gentleman in the suit jacket and oil money.

No seriously, things are going to get nuts....
On the plus side Congress will have a lot more time on their hands since they don't have to beg 50,000 people for 5000 each when they can just beg one billionaire for a million dollars which is more than enough for win 60% of house or senate races. Why would Sheldon Adelson spend 10 million on the US Presidences race when for the same money he can buy ten congressmen or three senators? Heck you could have legal time shares where Adelson gets together with the Koches and buy up the ten or so senators they need to control the Senate.

[Borgholio]

Welcome to the Corporate Republic.

[The Vortex Empire]

Because Plutocracies are a good idea, apparently?

[blahface]

I still think that fixing our voting system to stop vote splitting is a more important issue right now than money in politics, but we definitely need to be doing something about this. We need to support Wolf-Pac's endeavor to get the states to call for a constitutional convention.

[Lagmonster]

Awesome related joke a coworker told: "So, when America says they want to 'bring democracy to your country', what they mean is, 'so...is this place for sale, or what?'."

[Tribble]

What is all of that money actually spent on?

[Borgholio]

What is all of that money actually spent on?

Donations to political parties? They're spent on prime-time attack ads on TV and radio, they're spent on campaign workers to go door to door and place signs, they're spent on active campaign trips and meetings, and of course some levels of corruption and embezzlement and "gifts"

[TimothyC]

Guys, I'm still reading the decision (here), but it looks like the cap removal is on the aggregate limits, not the base limits. The cap that can be given to a candidate stays, but the cap of what can be given for an entire cycle as been lifted.

Before Wednesday’s ruling, wealthy campaign donors were limited in two important ways: a base limit dictated a maximum amount they could give to each campaign or party committee and an aggregate limit placed the upper bounds of how much a donor could give in total. Because the aggregate limit ($123,200 for the 2013-2014 cycle) was significantly smaller than the sum of giving the maximum amount to every campaign (about $3.6 million), that limit prohibited wealthy donors from giving the maximum amount to any number of candidates. Until today.

[Ahriman238]

So you're still restricted in how much money you can give to a given politician or candidate, but nothing prevents you from giving that same amount to every candidate and having whoever wins be beholden to you?

[Mr Bean]

So you're still restricted in how much money you can give to a given politician or candidate, but nothing prevents you from giving that same amount to every candidate and having whoever wins be beholden to you?

Thing is there's nothing to stop commity stacking. If you give money to the campaign to elect Bob, campaign of friends of Bob, campaign of Bob, campaign to super-elect bob. The committees can in theory pass the money directly along with only one cutout.

[TheHammer]

With the existence of SUPER PACS I'm not sure that this really makes that big of a difference in the long run. After all, there was always a defacto "no spending limit" as long as it was done with a Super PAC who "Didn't coordinate" with the candidate. This simply eliminates the sham. It seems we're going to need a constitutional amendment to have any sort of effective campaign finance reform.

[Guardsman Bass]

The spending restrictions were already pretty much a joke at this point, with big pocket donors getting around them with PACs and outside organizations that supposedly didn't communicate with campaigns. I think the political fight should have changed years ago towards trying to get stronger disclosure laws on political donations, especially large dollar ones. At least if you can identify where the "dark money" is coming from, you can see what each candidate is receiving.

It's not the end of democracy as we know it. Effective campaign finance restrictions basically didn't exist until the early 1970s (there were rules from the late 1930s and early 1940s, but they were poorly enforced), and that didn't turn the US into a plutocracy. Money mostly just gives you more effective means of getting your message and campaign in the public eye - it can't turn a loser candidate for office into a winner (see Steve Forbes in 2000, Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012).

[Lord MJ]

I think the bigger concern is that the politicians receiving the donations end up working for the donors rather than their constituents.

And it's a problem with both parties.

GOP - Promote policies that are to the benefit of their donors and spin a bunch of BS talking points as to why such policies are good for the people.

Dems - Promote policies that are good for the people, but then put minimal effort in following through but instead enact policies that are to the benefit of their donors. Then when the next election cycle comes around, repeat the process.

[Mr. Coffee]

Land of the fee and the home of depraved. We're a cunt-hair away from Blade Runner cosplay being considered an essential part of ones resume.

[Zaune]

Oh bugger.

[Tribble]

Yes, well the world has always run under the Golden Rule - those who have the gold make the rules. They are just being a bit more blatant about it these days.

[Sea Skimmer]

They lifted the limit on total donations per person, but not the limit on donations per candidate which remains 5,200 USD. Considering how much money people could already dump into super PACs, and that the limit per person was already 123,200 dollars per two year cycle, I'm not sure this is going to have that large an effect. of course that is largely a reflection of how bad the system already is.

This might actually cut down on the proportion of attack ads. Super Pacs do almost nothing else because they aren't allowed to coordinate with campaigns, and as much as we might scoff at that rule it does seem to have some actual effect. If the actual campaign gets the money it can spend it on a more sane approach. Of course the total number of attack ads will go up, but other stuff is likely to go up more like lavish campaign travel that burns money like crazy.

[Guardsman Bass]

It'd be nice if they got away from attack ads and spent more on organization and mobilization, since there's not a lot of evidence that the ads actually amount to much in terms of swaying elections.

[Lord MJ]

It'd be nice if they got away from attack ads and spent more on organization and mobilization, since there's not a lot of evidence that the ads actually amount to much in terms of swaying elections.

The problem is not so much the ads, in that the politicians either will be beholden to people with money, or afraid of people with money using against them. Instead of representing constituents, the politicians will work on behalf of their donors. The real problem is that the majority of the populace simply does not care.

[General Mung Beans]

With this, the second Fort Hood shooting, and the Chile earthquake it feels like 8th grade all over again...

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

With this, the second Fort Hood shooting, and the Chile earthquake it feels like 8th grade all over again...

It really ain't that bad. The Fort Hood shooting only killed four people (including the shooter,) and was a tragic case of mental illness, rather than terrorism. The Chile earthquake only killed six people (and four of those died from panicking to death.) This decision, as has been pointed out, means relatively little when you consider that rich assholes could already spend unlimited quantities of money on elections via super-PACs.

[SirNitram]

Just add it to the pile. While this ruling is not going to -drastically- change things, it's another case of this SCOTUS seeming to have very different views of how people should be elected. They have consistantly expanded corporate 'speech' 'rights', while permitted ever-more ways to deny citizens the vote.