TuteTibiImperes: FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.
MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?
SphericalTime: I presume. I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.
TuteTibiImperes: Yup, along the usual lines
abb3w: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?SphericalTime: I presume. I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.TuteTibiImperes: Yup, along the usual linesIt's more of a 1-4-4 ruling, with Justice Thomas thinking the other conservatives are too faint-hearted.
Teiritzamna: Here are some facts to aid in the thread:A bit of backgroundIt is important, for understanding what happened here to look back to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). In Buckley the Supreme Court, in a fractured opinion (lots of overlapping concurrences, so no simple majority), struck down limitations on campaign donations except those targeting specifically "quid pro quo" bribery.Buckley also reaffirmed the principle that contributing to a campaign is an expressive activity protected by the first amendment. An important plurality holding was from a liberal alliance helmed by Brennan who stressed that "the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 48-49. The then conservatives generally dissented. (I put this in here generally as a note that conservative and liberal in jurisprudence generally means something very different from in politics. Generally.)McCutcheon v. FECThe law struck down here is not the limits on individual campaign contributions, but the limits on aggregate contributions. Under the aggregate limits, Congress set a cap ($123,200/two year election cycle) on how much an entity may donate in an election season, no matter how many individuals they donated to.The court just held under the holding of Buckley, that while the individual caps are justified based on legitimate fear that large money donations will veer into the territory of quid pro quo bribery, the aggregate caps cannot be so said to prevent "pay for play" style corruption. The majority rejected the government's argument that an entity can normally donate $5,200 to a candidate, but if that $5,200 kicks that entity over the aggregate cap because that entity donated to multiple individuals/committees, it is now bribery. As the government thus lacked a legitimate interest, the aggregate cap was an unconstitutional infringement of rights under the fir ...
Serious Black: And there's the problem right there. Quid pro quo corruption is not the only kind of corruption one can find in a political system.
TuteTibiImperes: BunkoSquad: And yet if I offer to sell my vote for 100 bucks, I get in trouble.It's because you aren't thinking big enough. Steal a TV from Wal-Mart and you'll get thrown in the slammer. Steal $100,000,000 from Medicare and you get elected as Governor of Florida.
what_now: Jesus Christ. These justices should dress like NASCAR drivers.
naughtyrev: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess. Which groups are already working on this? The ACLU?This country was unable to get child labor or equal rights amendments passed, there's no chance of an amendment on this passing. Not with everyone in Congress potentially having the chance to profit from this ruling.
zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'
Misch: Well, at least we can equate political donations with flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades.
d23: A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.
FarkedOver: There needs to be an campaign contribution amendment if you want to completely circumvent the supreme court.
Teiritzamna: Serious Black: And there's the problem right there. Quid pro quo corruption is not the only kind of corruption one can find in a political system.Oh agreed - but under ~30 years of precedent, it is the only corruption that the government can legally point to to trump the First Amendment.
MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?/Koch suckers
theorellior: You want an activist court? You got one right here.Fark the Roberts Court.
d23: money isn't speech.
d23: FarkedOver: There needs to be an campaign contribution amendment if you want to completely circumvent the supreme court.Someone smarter than I need to figure out how we can have a constitutional convention without the asshole politicians being involved.
A republic cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until its wealthier members discover it is cheaper to bribe the representatives into exempting them from contributing than to contribute to the public treasury. After that, the wealthy always purchase the candidate promising the least contribution, with the result the republic collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by rule by the violent and anarchic mob, then a dictatorship. - Alexander Tytler RAND PAUL
A republic cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until its wealthier members discover it is cheaper to bribe the representatives into exempting them from contributing than to contribute to the public treasury. After that, the wealthy always purchase the candidate promising the least contribution, with the result the republic collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by rule by the violent and anarchic mob, then a dictatorship.
qorkfiend: For us non-lawyers, what are the practical effects? It sounds like individuals can now donate up to the maximum individual limit to an unlimited number of candidates.
SphericalTime: This is disgusting:"Moreover, the only type of corruption that Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 359."Really? I think that's exactly what it farking means.
zedster: Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?Pg 1, bottom. Gets worseMoney 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 campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
AcademGreen: It would lead to an all out war of rhetoric and probably violence. There is very little agreement on what the role of government should be and even less trust in our leaders. It would be a bad, bad thing.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 20 2017 19:54:26
Runtime: 0.916 sec (916 ms)