Jump to content

Supreme Court ruling gives small number of wealthy donors new ways to drive campaigns

Politics   (3,997 Views 91 Comments)
6 Followers; 100,626 Visitors; 16,580 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

An elite class of wealthy donors who have gained mounting influence in campaigns now has the ability to exert even greater sway.

A Supreme Court decision Wednesday to do away with an overall limit on how much individuals can give candidates and political parties opens a new spigot for money to flow into campaigns already buffeted by huge spending from independent groups...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-ruling-gives-small-number-of-wealthy-donors-new-ways-to-drive-campaigns/2014/04/02/b1ab041a-ba8a-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long live free speech. :up:

There is just a fundamental and deep division in thought on what this issue is about.

Chief Justice Roberts said the core purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech from government interference, even if many people might welcome it.

“They would be delighted to see fewer television commercials touting a candidate’s accomplishments or disparaging an opponent’s character,” he wrote. “Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so, too, does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html?_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Sides Cry 'Free Speech' As Supreme Court Lifts Campaign-Finance Limits - Forbes

This is a good side by side article that showcases the differences.

“Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others,” Roberts wrote, in a decision joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. (Thomas, in a concurrence, would have gone further and subjected all contribution limits to the same strict scrutiny as other forms of expression.)

Edited by Spidey's mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society - WSJ.com

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself

A short article . . . . but for those who demonize the Koch Brothers, to be fair, you should at least read about their true story.

Edited by Spidey's mom
quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society - WSJ.com

A short article . . . . but for those who demonize the Koch Brothers, to be fair, you should at least read about their true story.

Also those who demonize the Koch Brothers, should be also demonizing George Soros and big time Democrats who are loaded and who fund their own agendas in big ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Justice Thomas: leading the way to campaign-finance deregulation” | Election Law Blog

From these many opinions, it is clear that Justice Thomas would vote to strike down every contribution or spending limit that might be enacted by a legislative body in the United States. Under Thomas’s vision, it would be perfectly permissible, for example, for Microsoft or the AFL-CIO to give $100 million to a presidential candidate running for office. The justice believes any corrupt activity would be ferreted out and prosecuted under applicable federal bribery laws.

Thomas’ analysis is perhaps at its weakest when it delves into the realm of empirical predictions and political science. Besides seriously underestimating the difficulty of ferreting out prosecutable cases of bribery, he also takes an unrealistically charitable view of the motivations of donors. Thus, in response to evidence that “in 1996 and 2000, more than half of the top 50 soft-money donors gave substantial sums to both major political parties” — which suggested that major corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals were purchasing access to federal officeholders — Thomas expressed the view that there was “substantial overlap” between the ideological views of Democrats and Republicans and “[if] donors feel that both major political parties are in general agreement over an issue of importance to them, it is unremarkable that such donors show support for both parties”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society - WSJ.com

A short article . . . . but for those who demonize the Koch Brothers, to be fair, you should at least read about their true story.

Since we're citing opinion pieces, here's one from the left:

...this isn’t the Koch brothers first pity-party, or their first descent into making things up about President Obama. Three years ago Charles and David sat down with the Weekly Standard and complained about their “demonization” by Democrats and President Obama, who they then went on to demonize. (A clinical note: Projection is also associated with self-pity.)

Charles accused Obama of believing “Marxist models.” David went further, blaming Obama’s views on his father, “a hard core economic socialist in Kenya,” he said. “He had sort of antibusiness, anti-free enterprise influences affecting him almost all his life. It just shows you what a person with a silver tongue can achieve.”

David also called anti-Koch protesters “very, very extreme, and I think very dangerous.That was pretty shocking, to see what we’re up against, or what the country’s up against: to have an element like this.”

So clearly self-pity is a persistent problem for Charles and his brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also those who demonize the Koch Brothers, should be also demonizing George Soros and big time Democrats who are loaded and who fund their own agendas in big ways.

And let us not forget the Great White Father of political demonization: Newt Gingrich. Dedicated teacher that he is, he even wrote a primer on the tactic that he so helpfully shared with the entire Republican party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read it earlier this morning. We get the WSJ.

Me too. Love the WSJ. Much more in-depth reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since we're citing opinion pieces, here's one from the left:

this isn't the Koch brothers first pity-party, or their first descent into making things up about President Obama. Three years ago Charles and David sat down with the Weekly Standard and complained about their "demonization" by Democrats and President Obama, who they then went on to demonize. (A clinical note: Projection is also associated with self-pity.)

Charles accused Obama of believing "Marxist models." David went further, blaming Obama's views on his father, "a hard core economic socialist in Kenya," he said. "He had sort of antibusiness, anti-free enterprise influences affecting him almost all his life. It just shows you what a person with a silver tongue can achieve."

David also called anti-Koch protesters "very, very extreme, and I think very dangerous....That was pretty shocking, to see what we're up against, or what the country's up against: to have an element like this."

So clearly self-pity is a persistent problem for Charles and his brother.

Would you mind linking that? I'd like to read where they were wrong about Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.