# SCOTUS strikes down aggregate campaign donation limits **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 2, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168 "2014-04-02T14:32:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/181 "2014-04-07T20:12:56Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I gather what you mean to say is that the end could be achieved by other _means_? Well, OK, we’re listening. What do you have in mind? Have you a positive suggestion to make, or are you simply in opposition? Yes, I meant to say ‘means’. My point was that if the goal you have in mind, egalitarian democracy, can be achieved by other means than free speech, then free speech becomes something that can be sacrificed if other means are available to achieve the goal. What those are I don’t know, but it leads to the conclusion that free speech is only protected in so much as it currently satisfies the goal - not that it is the goal itself. Because it is simply a means in your construction, it is vulnerable but it should not be. Therefore your vision of free speech is sucky. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/182 "2014-04-07T20:13:45Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > You say this like it is somehow shocking. Yes, the rich guy has a nicer home and cars that you or I drive. He takes his family on nicer vacations. He can afford premium satellite television and yes, he can pay for more TV commercials and get his message out better than you or I can. > > It is like saying that the 4th amendment is not applied equally because a rich man can protect his 30,000 square foot house from the government, but I can only protect 1,250 sq. feet. Money always gives a person the ability to make certain choices that the absence of money doesn’t allow. Well, sure, but it’s a damned sight different with consumer choices than with political influence. The fact that the rich person has nicer stuff by far than I do doesn’t make America any less democratic. But being able to give more to politicians than a hundred million Americans do, does. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/183 "2014-04-07T20:21:14Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > …Because it is simply a means in your construction, it is vulnerable but it should not be. Therefore your vision of free speech is sucky. Is there something magical and transcendent about “free speech”? Does it require absolute purity, free of any caveats and hindrances? Ideally, I kinda like that idea, because its simpler and less of a hassle than making tough choices. And just as I said, if we can’t come up with a workable scheme that will limit the power of money without doing harm to the principle of free speech, then we’ll just have to live with it. After all, can’t have people yelling “Theater!” at a crowded fire. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2014, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/184 "2014-04-07T23:30:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because the amount of money spent on American election campaigns is pernicious in and of itself, because the candidates including the incumbents have to spend so much of their time raising it and obligating themselves to the biggest donors, and because they end up so obligated. N.B.: These are problems with “free speech” only to the **extent** money can be equated with speech; and to the extent it can be so equated, “free speech” can to that extent be dismissed as indefensible or even pernicious, because buying political influence in a republic is exactly that and all of that; but the above remain real problems. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/185 "2014-04-08T20:41:39Z")
This is one of the problems with incumbency: they can use taxpayer dollars to contribute to their own campaigns in ways that challengers cannot. In this case, they are actually asking the President to make a huge donation to their campaign: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-seek-obama-administrations-help-with-agency-decisions-to-boost-reelection-bids/2014/04/07/03ca473e-bb70-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-seek-obama-administrations-help-with-agency-decisions-to-boost-reelection-bids/2014/04/07/03ca473e-bb70-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html) **In the post-earmark era, using the party’s control of the federal bureaucracy to deliver local projects or delay new regulations that might stifle jobs has become a critical part of Democratic efforts to maintain control of the Senate. In close races, particularly in less populated states such as Alaska and Montana, incumbents are hoping that a few favorable agency decisions might secure the backing of key constituencies.** We stopped the earmark campaign contributions, now we just have to make it illegal for President to dish out favors to vulnerable incumbents. That is a very substantial campaign contribution and it should be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/186 "2014-04-08T20:51:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This is one of the problems with incumbency: they can use taxpayer dollars to contribute to their own campaigns in ways that challengers cannot. Do you think there should be term limits? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/187 "2014-04-08T20:59:45Z")
No. I think that Congress should simply continue to reform the way that money is spent, as they did with the earmark ban, and that challengers should continue to raise as much money as they need to compete with incumbents, who even when behind in the money race, have all the advantages. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/188 "2014-04-09T05:06:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No. I think that Congress should simply continue to reform the way that money is spent, as they did with the earmark ban, and that challengers should continue to raise as much money as they need to compete with incumbents, who even when behind in the money race, have all the advantages. Yeah, but you willfully fail to see that the people who write the big checks, the ones that dwarf everyone elses’ checks, tend overwhelmingly to be the wealthy, who tend overwhelmingly to be conservative, which tends overwhelmingly to destroy democracy. It doesn’t matter of the candidate who wins is the incumbent or not if the one who wins is the paid-for playtoy of the wealthy in either case. The idea of democracy is that everyone gets a vote. If that vote means nothing because the candidates have to sell out to wealthy donors to buy media time, then democracy is dead. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/189 "2014-04-09T10:41:36Z")
Again, there are many more ways to buy influence than to just buy ads. Do you think democracy is any more healthy if a few prominent media figures get to decide who is elected? Or party heads? One reason all the primaries have gone wonky lately is precisely becuase the party bosses don’t have the same level of control they used to. That’s MORE democracy, not less. Incumbents falling is MORE democracy, not less. But if you want to go back to the era when Walter Cronkite and the NY Times told us all who to vote for and party bosses picked all the nominees, and incumbents never fell… It seems that for many of you, your objection isn’t to kingmakers, it’s just THESE particular kingmakers. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/190 "2014-04-09T13:42:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Again, there are many more ways to buy influence than to just buy ads. Do you think democracy is any more healthy if a few prominent media figures get to decide who is elected? Or party heads? One reason all the primaries have gone wonky lately is precisely becuase the party bosses don’t have the same level of control they used to. That’s MORE democracy, not less. Incumbents falling is MORE democracy, not less. > > But if you want to go back to the era when Walter Cronkite and the NY Times told us all who to vote for and party bosses picked all the nominees, and incumbents never fell… > > It seems that for many of you, your objection isn’t to kingmakers, it’s just THESE particular kingmakers. Well the “problem” that you are referring to has a generational solution. Younger people don’t watch television or read the newspapers. They get their news, such as it is, from the Internet, from people like The Young Turks on Youtube. They trend heavily progressive, too. Let the Rupert Murdochs have their Fox News Channels spewing lies 24/7 to an aging and increasingly decrepit viewership. It won’t be long before they are all dead. Such a victory! So if we can keep the billionaires from taking over the Internet, we should be fine, in the long run. If you think MSNBC has some ability to compel people to watch Rachel Maddow … well, I don’t watch her, and I’m a progressive. I think the reason she is still on TV is that she is willing to toe the line where the Obama Administration is concerned. I consider MSNBC to be pretty much in line with the DLC politically. Yes, broadcast and cable news media run the full gamut of the politicial spectrum, from the Tea Party lunatics who watch Fox News to the Republican Lites who watch MSNBC and think they are lefties. We need to do something about that … but let’s limit the ability of billionaires to outright BUY elections, first. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/191 "2014-04-09T17:18:46Z")
Unless you’re suggesting that the rich are somehow voting more than once, or they are engaging in some sort of election fraud by actually buying votes, then the election is still won or lost by convincing more individual people to cast their votes for a particular person. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/192 "2014-04-09T17:57:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Unless you’re suggesting that the rich are somehow voting more than once, or they are engaging in some sort of election fraud by actually buying votes, then the election is still won or lost by convincing more individual people to cast their votes for a particular person. It is also won or lost by the process of deciding what choices appear on the ballot, a process in which you and I have almost no say even when there is a primary involved. At the federal level a candidate usually has to win a “wealth primary” to be taken seriously – and that usually is based not on the candidate’s personal fortune but on the size of his campaign chest so far. I.e., you can’t even get to **that** point without becoming beholden to megadonors. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/193 "2014-04-09T18:11:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It is also won or lost by the process of deciding what choices appear on the ballot, a process in which you and I have almost no say even when there is a primary involved. The process that a candidate is placed on the ballot is proscribed, and can be changed. You have a say in this by the elected officials that nominate or appoint, and confirm the people responsible for these processes. Your concerns are unpersuasive. Everyone who wins, needs to get the votes (save for fraud or criminal activity). Convincing people to vote for a particular candidate - that’s speech. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/194 "2014-04-09T18:49:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The process that a candidate is placed on the ballot is proscribed, and can be changed. “Proscribed” means “forbidden.” What did you mean to say here? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/195 "2014-04-09T19:54:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Proscribed” means “forbidden.” What did you mean to say here? Oops, you’re right. That was an unfortunate typo. I meant to say prescribed: _“to lay down as a guide, direction, or rule of action”_ ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/196 "2014-04-09T21:47:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well the “problem” that you are referring to has a generational solution. Younger people don’t watch television or read the newspapers. They get their news, such as it is, from the Internet, from people like The Young Turks on Youtube. They trend heavily progressive, too. Let the Rupert Murdochs have their Fox News Channels spewing lies 24/7 to an aging and increasingly decrepit viewership. It won’t be long before they are all dead. Such a victory! > > . Then you shouldn’t be bothered by anyone’s megaphone. There is no shortage of conservative news sites and bloggers with massive readerships on the internet. Yet young people are trending progressive despite that. It does actually seem that people can sift through all kinds of commentary and advocacy and make their own choices. So we should let a thousand flowers bloom and quit worrying about spending on elections. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/197 "2014-04-09T21:50:49Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > We need to do something about that … but let’s limit the ability of billionaires to outright BUY elections, first. They can’t, and they don’t. When billionaires start defeating popular candidates through sheer force of money, then I’ll get worried. So far, the best they can do is remind voters that they hate a particular incumbent and that maybe they should turn out and vote them out since they feel that way. Given their limited influence so far, that’s a GOOD thing. Unpopular incumbents hanging on the by skin of their teeth primarily due to low turnout is not healthy for democracy. And one of the positive byproducts of ad campaigns is that they also serve as ads for the election itself, increasing turnout. You’ll find that elections with few ads are elections that are very low turnout indeed. Since there is a conflict between what Democrats want on spending and what they want in terms of voter turnout, they do need to decide here which is more important. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/198 "2014-04-10T05:56:35Z")
Boy, those rich guys are really stupid, or they have simply failed to consult the expert. Apparently, they believe their millions of bucks have an actual effect, but no! Nor so, says **adaher**! Well, OK, maybe a little bit, a teensy bit, but not enough to worry about, not enough to do anything about. So, what we have is a situation where really nothing needs to be done, because nothing is wrong, but if we do something about it, the results will fall somewhere between disastrous and catastrophic. Guess that’s all settled then. What’s on TV? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/199 "2014-04-10T06:10:11Z")
The rich people are doing exactly what I said they are doing: helping to topple already unpopular incumbents. They aren’t wasting their time spending millions trying to topple popular incumbents. Because they know they can’t do it. So yes, they are quite smart, smarter than those who say that money can buy an election. What I wonder is why so many people want unpopular incumbents to remain in office, mainly by bribing important constituencies with YOUR money. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/200 "2014-04-10T06:12:27Z")
And let’s be clear about how this money is “buying elections”. Most of these big ad buys are simply reminding voters that incumbent A voted for the ACA. Funny, I’d think we’d all want that to be known, wouldn’t we? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168.md?page=11)