Prior to this ruling there was a limit of about $123,000 per election cycle that an individual donor could spread around amongst various federal candidates. That works out to a bit less than $250 per member of Congress.
The ruling, written by Chief Justice Roberts was 5-4. Roberts was joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Alito. Thomas concurred in the decision but indicated he would have gone further in his reasoning. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the dissent written by Breyer.
My take. Good thing. The limits were too low to be justifiable in the aggregate.
Absolutely! Because what could be better for democracy than concentrating more and more political power into the hands of fewer and fewer moneyed elites!
This decision is solely about aggregate limits. It leaves intact the $2600 per candidate limit.
Before this decision the $123,200 limits was a combined limit of total donations a person could make to candidates and PACs. That was up to $48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to PACs.
Suppose you wished to make a donation to each candidate in California of your favored party for the House of Representatives. Your donation would be limited to about 35% of the per-candidate maximum under limits in force prior to today’s ruling.
I don’t understand this decision. Contributions to political candidates are not speech. Independent spending is speech, going back before Citizens United, all the way to Buckley in 1976. But when you just give money to someone, that’s not speech.
Before: If a billionaire wanted to donate the max contribution to a large number of candidates in local and state races all around the country, s/he was limited to about 20 such races before s/he hit the $48,600 aggregate limit.
Now: Said billionaire can donate $2,600 dollars to each of 500 candidates nationwide, increasing their influence 25-fold.
Sounds like it to me. Although I’m not sure that it increases influence in any significant way, given that bundling was the primary way rich folks gained influence before.
Politicians always leave themselves loopholes, and the ability of bundlers to raise hundreds of thousands for them from their rich friends legally made politicians’ fundraising easier. This makes it a little easier still, but it’s not an earthshattering change.
I just don’t get the reasoning. The conservative justices stated that participation in elections is a fundamental right that makes this kind of limit unjustifiable. If that’s their reasoning, then I have to concede that voter ID laws are also unjustifiable. I was operating under the impression that participation in the electoral system was contingent on qualifications and reasonable rules. Apparently conservative judges have declared that it’s a fundamental right, so I guess it is now.
Sorry, I don’t see how that follows. Voter ID laws are unjustifiable because they are designed to address a non-problem, but in principle the right to vote (as distinct from participation-in-elections in general) can be limited by law, denied to convicts, etc.
A law does not have to be justified by a proven problem. It only needs a rational basis, unless we’re dealing with a fundamental right, in which case the law has to pass strict scrutiny.
It’s quite rational to require ID when proving identity is necessary. Is requiring ID for hotels or flights solving a problem that actually exists? No, but laws requiring it are justified because they are rational.
Geez, if lawmakers had to prove that they were solving an actual problem that existed, half of our laws would be struck down. Starting with campaign finance limits, which you can’t prove contribute to corruption.
Well, then, the problem there is that speech – and, therefore, according to the SCOTUS’ reasoning, donating money – is a fundamental constitutional right but voting is not.
The logic is that you can contribute $2600 and it is not corrupting. But if I contribute $1000 it is corrupting because I also contributed to others.
Limits were enacted under the premise of limiting corruption. Any system that calls a $2600 donation acceptable but could call a $100 donation corrupting is a strange one.
I would agree with that, given the justification they used, that participation in the electoral process is a fundamental right.
Although you’re wrong about one thing: speech is a fundamental right, voting is not, according to the Constitution. But if you include the entire electoral process in the 1st amendment, which it appears they are doing, then that would certainly place voting under the 1st amendment.
But it’s not calling the $100 or $1000 donation corrupting: It’s calling them all, in the aggregate, corrupting. If you want to buy a law, you’re going to need to bribe more than one legislator, and so it makes sense to consider the total amount you’re spending on all of them, not just on one.
In that respect, it’s interesting to note that before McCain-Feingold, anyone could make unlimited donations to political parties. This was called soft money.
I’d say that’s more corrupting than any other potential money source by far. You can buy a whole party. At least the soft money ban is still in place.
The only flaw in your thinking is that you’re thinking too small.
For the billionaire can also contribute that much money to each of thousands of candidates for state legislatures around the country. So multiply your 25-fold by another 10 or 20.
First of all, now the billionaires can buy the party retail rather than wholesale. It’s hard to see how that is comforting.
And second, is there any reason to believe the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, will be favorably disposed to upholding any remaining contribution limits?
Look at it this way, dollars have “In God We Trust”, printed right on them. Each and every one is a form of devotional literature. If you have ten of them, and I have but one, your devotion to God is, objectively measured, ten times what mine is!
God recognizes this fact, and through His instrument on Earth, the Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it, etc…), He distributes His approval accordingly. The lesser classes must learn to accept His judgement, that he has placed the world into the hands of those best qualified to serve His will!
Many people misunderstand Scripture, and misquote. Doesn’t say “Money is the root of all evil”, says that “Love of money is the root of all evil”! And who loves money more than the people who don’t have any? And who loves it less than those God has ordained must labor under its burden, groaning beneath the weight of gold? Remember: however much a man might lust for a spectacularly beautiful woman, somewhere there is a man who is sick of her shit. Same with money!
God has burdened the rich with money because He trusts their probity and wisdom, and assures them ascendancy on Earth and a certain place in the Pearly Gated Community. The poor go to Hell? That seems unfair to you? No, no, it is more clear proof of God’s mercy, because they will hardly notice any difference!
We should heed God’s decision, and place our trust in those He has chosen to lead us and guide us.
Sorry, I don’t see how that follows. Voter ID laws are unjustifiable because they are designed to address a non-problem, but in principle the right to vote (as distinct from participation-in-elections in general) can be limited by law, denied to convicts, etc.