Everyone admits money in politics taints and destroys Congress’ ability to act responsibly, fairly, etc. on pretty much anything. But political contributions are a long-used method to bribe… er, um… make your voice be heard. What should the Court do?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to delve once again into the controversial issue of limits on money in politics.

This time, it’s the limits placed by federal law on how much an individual can contribute to candidates and political organizations.

The court today agreed to take up a challenge brought by an Alabama man who claims it’s unconstitutional to prevent him from giving more than $46,200 to candidates and $70,800 to PACs and political committees. He does not challenge the limit on contributions to an individual candidate, but he does claim it’s unconstitutional to prevent him from contributing to as many candidates as he wishes.



  1. Phydeau says:

    Judging by what they decided on Citizens United I expect them to open the floodgates further. Why shouldn’t rich people be able to give as much money as they want to as many candidates as they want? What could possibly go wrong?

    Funny how silent the “conservatives” are here when it comes to stuff like this. They don’t seem to mind Republicans buying elections. Maybe it’s because they’re Republicans themselves, and have the delusion that the people running the Republican party actually give a sh*t about non-rich people.

    • Mextli says:

      We don’t mind them buying elections because Republicans are discriminating shoppers. Democrats will just buy any old trash.

    • BubbaMustafa says:

      ….Because there are NO rich democrats that give to the ’cause, huh?
      (7 out 10 of the richest people on congress are democrats)

    • pedro says:

      Yup, Fido keeps thinking the only stinkin’ rich people are on the other team. Hypocrite!

    • Ya Ya Ya says:

      You’re partly right but for a few wrong reasons.

      There’s no real war on poor people or anything like that. It may seem that way since there are still a lot of bigots and racists out there – some of them rich Congressmen even.

      You seem to miss the point since it’s not really about money but rather about POWER! Money is simply ammunition. It’s the one thing poor people don’t have probably because they’re usually also stupid!

      But it gets better (really, it get’s worse)! The very ability for anyone to earn or even keep a buck is also being threatened. Even the ability to learn seems to be under assault. And that threat is NOT coming from the right side of the isle but rather the left!!!

      It just amazes me that most people seem to think their “salvation” is going to come from some politician or a doll on a stick or something. That seems to be the only difference in politics! Right is for the doll whereas left is for the lying cheating politician who screws them every single time (most of the time making them think the other guy did it). These poor people actually choose to BELIEVE in things that plain simple logic says is not possible or is simply not there.

      So to choose ignorance over facts like that is the pinnacle of stupid, if you ask me. And it’s no surprise to me that most of those believers also have vows of poverty if they don’t also choose to waste their money.

      Let me be clear! Poor people are usually poor for one very HUGE reason that they themselves can control – EDUCATION!

      So make sure your objections to “rich people” aren’t really just your own JEALOUSY or a lack of learning. Make sure you object to REAL injustices. Make sure you object when you see your own ABILITY to do the very things the LAWS are there to PROTECT being threatened. Make sure you and your children have the OPPORTUNITY to be educated -and- be RICH! Because I think we can all agree that being rich is really a bit too subjective and is what that “pursuit of happiness” thing is really all about.

    • Phydeau says:

      I don’t hear any “conservatives” here objecting to rich people buying elections. Maybe you can tell me why you think that’s OK.

      • Phydeau says:

        Here, to help your little minds along… pretend it’s Democrats pushing these laws instead of Republicans.

        • pedro says:

          Oh Fido, back to your lefty boot licking self.

          Sure Fido, the guy who buy your dog food are not rich, they just play one on TV. The guys that you bark at at your master’s commands are the real rich bastard.

          Keep barking lil’ Fido. The more you bark the more you believe and love your masters.

          Idiot!

  2. Sea Lawyer says:

    Individuals should be able to give as much of their property to another as they wish, but I would also make them subject to gift taxes (as long as we are going to be taxing other forms of gifts that is).

  3. tcc3 says:

    If were going to allow unlimited campaign contributions, then we should tax them at 70%. The 2012 campaign cost $6 billion dollars. It’d be nice to do something constructive with that kind of cash.

    Id like to see us mandate publicly funded campaigns, but we seem to be going in the opposite direction.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      Given our heavily entrenched and institutionally favored two party system, how would a mandatory public financing system every be able to support politically divergent, alternative viewpoints? The system we have is bad enough right now with the ability to raise money privately.

    • MikeN says:

      It does get taxed, when the money is collected as income.

  4. noname says:

    The Declaration of Independence helped define our government: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

    Now the Supreme Court want to redefine the power base of our Government from “deriving their just powers from the consent of the govern” to instead those who can buy influence!

    As this rate, it is going to take Americans to grow a back bone and demand a constitutional amendment to change campaign fiancé, influence of lobbyist, gerrymandering, congressional term limits, government/corporate revolving door, …!!!

    • BubbaMustafa says:

      Declaration of independence is NOT US law, the constitution it. The Dec of Indy, came BEFORE there was a nation, and sovereignty, and there was a gov’t that failed between it and the current.

      • Sea Lawyer says:

        No, but it does show intention when getting to the dirty business of legal interpretation.

  5. BubbaMustafa says:

    Giving money to EITHER party……
    Well a fool and his money are soon parted.
    There is a sucker born every minute.
    etc.
    etc.
    etc.

  6. msbpodcast says:

    I’d limit the politics (people, electioneering and the entire money raising system) by restricting the fund-raising to a period of 30 days before an election and making all of the parties donate the remaining funds to the IRS for the reduction of the deficit/our taxes.

    No further expenditures would be permitted from the parties or their representatives until the next election cycle. The bank accounts would be frozen and all transactions would be declined.

    No further fundraising would be permitted by the parties or their representatives until the next election cycle. The bank accounts would be frozen and all transactions would be declined.

    No paid political ads would be permitted beyond the 30 day period. (You wanna make the news, get shot or do some good.)

    That way we wouldn’t be subjected to the idiotic spectacle of these old, mostly white, mostly male, all rich on other people’s money, imbeciles parading their stupidity beyond one month every election cycle.

    Then it would be an grotesque orgy of attack ads and obscene spending, of course, but, that’s politics

  7. orchidcup says:

    There is one positive thing we can say about American politics:

    It sucks.

  8. MikeN says:

    How about we include the media’s mentions of a candidates as equivalent to other corporate spending on behalf of candidates?

  9. CPBrown says:

    Campaign finance laws only restrict the giving side of the equation.

    It takes a politician to finalize the “bribe” to make the action corrupt.

    I don’t understand how so much is said about the supply side of donations, and completely absolve the demand side of Congressional malfeasance.

    • msbpodcast says:

      This is America buddy. we got the 99%, the 1% and 12,400 oligarchs. (The IRS even very helpfully listed them until Bush got in office.)

      None of the politicians are interested in effective solutions here.

      That’s because they are doing their damnedest to stay on the demand side of the bribery and corruption economics.

      They are raking in the money by diverting some of it as it flows like a shining, golden river of Budweiser, or later in the digestive process, from the bladders, of the poor to the oceans owned by the oligarchs.

  10. MikeN says:

    Supposedly high amount of contributions are corrupting and should be banned. Yet, when a politician is facing a self-funded billionaire, they are allowed to take in bigger contributions. How is a big contribution corrupting of not corrupting because of the amount of money your opponent is spending?

    Campaign finance laws should be called by their true name: incumbent protection laws.

    • tcc3 says:

      And campaign finance should be called by its true name “buying influence and subverting the process”

      A publicly funded campaign system would fix your issue. But the rich dont want that because it equates them to the unwashed masses in terms of influence.