Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • artabr

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 24, 2008
    2,623
    36
    New Iberia , Louisiana
    http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/jan/21/supreme-court-rolls-back-campaign-spending-limits/

    Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

    WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

    By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

    It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

    Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

    "The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues
    .

    However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

    Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

    The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

    (I believe that this affects and now allows pro-gun orgs. to run ads in the media. Art)

    Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

    The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

    The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.




    Art
     
    Last edited:

    pntbllr228

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    47   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    1,523
    36
    Right by LSU
    I don't see why there need to be limits. If it's private money, it's none of the gov't's business.

    I think if you thought more about this, you might change your mind, as I am assuming you are a conservative. It is already a race of who can raise the most money. It doesnt matter who is more qualified, it matters who is better liked. If you can get your face on every tv, and your name on every billboard, more people will like you. Money and politics shouldn't go together.
     

    CloudStrife

    Why so serious?
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 5, 2010
    3,156
    36
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I think if you thought more about this, you might change your mind, as I am assuming you are a conservative. It is already a race of who can raise the most money. It doesnt matter who is more qualified, it matters who is better liked. If you can get your face on every tv, and your name on every billboard, more people will like you. Money and politics shouldn't go together.

    Then it's a flaw of the system, not the people donating. If anything should be capped, it's the amount each candidate can raise.

    What about debates? Do politicians pay to participate in those?
     
    Top Bottom