# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/41 "2014-04-02T18:38:06Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t think any of those are viable without opening the door for this Court or a more conservative one to do things to free speech that the Left would hate. Could you be a bit more specific about the parade of horribles you foresee? I am generally willing to bow to your wisdom on this sort of thing but it feels like you’re operating very much on a hunch here. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/42 "2014-04-02T18:43:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Perhaps you can point out where I said they aren’t allowed to associate with others. > > The fact that you think commentary like this is appropriate in a debate (not to mention the fact that you are completely misquoting me) means you are wasting your time trying to debate _anyone_. The quote was complete and unedited. Maybe you did not read the decision. So here is your chance. How is a arbitrary limit on the number of campaigns that you can contribute to…thus associate with not a restriction of the righe right of association? And how does the that limit not quell the right to collectively persue those goals? The state failed to convey a state interest in doing so except to restrict access to the political system. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/43 "2014-04-02T18:48:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That was my point, and that is what needs to change. Voting is a right though case law. How does a limited number of campaigns you can support effect the right to vote? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/44 "2014-04-02T18:48:54Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > How is a arbitrary limit on the number of campaigns that you can contribute to…thus associate with not a restriction of the righe right of association? Same way a law against prostitution isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/45 "2014-04-02T18:50:00Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I am under the impression that confined and cabined are synonyms. > > To expand on my point a little further, I think you have basically three legal paths if you want to restrict campaign contributions: (1) You say money isn’t speech; (2) You say the threat of corruptions outweighs the speech interest; and/or (3) You say there’s some democracy or equality value that outweighs the speech interest. > > I don’t think any of those are viable without opening the door for this Court or a more conservative one to do things to free speech that the Left would hate. I don’t see how “money isn’t speech” would open that door. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/46 "2014-04-02T18:53:31Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Same way a law against prostitution isn’t. I love how my phone is remembering my typos. Flesh this one out please I am not following your line of reason here. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/47 "2014-04-02T18:57:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I don’t see how “money isn’t speech” would open that door. The “money isn’t speech” argument is fundamentally flawed and can be discounted as rhetoric. Effective “speech” requires the expenditure of money so restrictions on spending quelled speech. But that doesn’t seem to be as good of a sound bite. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/48 "2014-04-02T19:02:51Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Effective “speech” requires the expenditure of money so restrictions on spending quelled speech. Which constitutional provision guarantees the freedom of “effective speech”? How does one guarantee “effective speech”? > [@](#): > > The quote was complete and unedited. I was referring to this: > [@](#): > > …you admit that you don’t know what a representative democracy is or how a republic functions… That was you misquoting me. I said nothing even remotely resembling either of those statements. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/49 "2014-04-02T19:04:19Z")
> [@](#): > > …Effective “speech” requires the expenditure of money so restrictions on spending quelled speech… Can you not see the difference between “quelling” speech and allowing speech to be overwhelmed? The progressive candidate gets one of those conical megaphones they used to use in the 20’s. The ruling class candidate rolls up in a million dollar tour bus with Marshall amps and Godzilla speakers that can be heard in the next county. That’s fair because they are both “free speech”? You kidding? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/50 "2014-04-02T19:39:22Z")
Well, let’s not do the dumb arguments again that we heard in the wake of Citizens United. There is no drowning out effect. We do not need to stop some people from speaking so that others can be heard. There is no finite amount of speech such that rich people can buy it all, leaving us with none. I speak on this discussion board just fine despite Sheldon Adelson. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/51 "2014-04-02T19:41:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Which constitutional provision guarantees the freedom of “effective speech”? How does one guarantee “effective speech”? The freedom of the press…to publish for one. But you are conflating the issues. The reason that this decision was made was there was no compelling state interest in to restrict a fundamentally right. The state can not place arbitrary restrictions on a fundamental right without one. > [@](#): > > I was referring to this: > > That was you misquoting me. I said nothing even remotely resembling either of those statements. That is not a misquote… Were you thinking of a strawman? It is not even that. To elect a candidate that will further your interests you need to join an association to help get them elected. This process requires resources to win that election. Part of " spreading the word" may require travel and thus a hotel. I stand by my claim of your missunderaning of the process. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/52 "2014-04-02T19:46:49Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > I love how my phone is remembering my typos. > > Flesh this one out please I am not following your line of reason here. “Right of association” does not apply to commerce. Buying a whore is commerce, and so is buying a candidate or a party or an election. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/53 "2014-04-02T19:48:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Can you not see the difference between “quelling” speech and allowing speech to be overwhelmed? > > The progressive candidate gets one of those conical megaphones they used to use in the 20’s. The ruling class candidate rolls up in a million dollar tour bus with Marshall amps and Godzilla speakers that can be heard in the next county. > > That’s fair because they are both “free speech”? You kidding? No this is exactly why this issue is important. Under this law a group of teachers who pool their resources would have to be selective in the causes they supported. Where as single issue interests could amass large numbers of individual donations. The Gates foundation would be restricted and the NRA could always outspend them. But one again. The fact that protecting fundamental rights may be more advantageous to a cause that is counter to your wishes is not a good reason to violate fundimental rights. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/54 "2014-04-02T19:53:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Right of association” does not apply to commerce. Buying a whore is commerce, and so is buying a candidate or a party or an election. OK I was giving your argument way too much credit. How did thus law…which restricted the number of candidates you supported relate to this or the right to vote as you claimed before? This seemed to be nothing more than a red herring ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/55 "2014-04-02T20:15:41Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The “money isn’t speech” argument is fundamentally flawed and can be discounted as rhetoric. Effective “speech” requires the expenditure of money so restrictions on spending quelled speech. > > But that doesn’t seem to be as good of a sound bite. That argument does not answer my question to **Richard Parker,** which is, if the SCOTUS **did** rule that money != speech, how would that “open the door for this Court or a more conservative one to do things to free speech that the Left would hate”? This matter is, after all, not symmetrical as between left and right; the right has a **lot** more money behind it. As for your argument, it is refuted well enough below. From [_The Next American Nation,_](http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/0684825031/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214163307&sr=8-1) by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed): > [@](#): > > Campaign financing is by far the most important mechanism for overclass influence in government. The real two-party system in the United States consists of the party of voters and the tiny but influential party of donors. The donor party in the United States is made up of an extraordinarily small number of citizens. In 1988, according to one study, only 10.2 percent of the American public made a contribution to a candidate, party, or partisan group. . . . The group of large political donors is a still more exclusive club. According to a study by Citizen Action, in the 1989-90 election cycle only 179,677 individual donors gave contributions greater than $200 to a federal candidate, political action committee (PAC), or party: “Thirty-four percent of the money spent by federal candidates was directly contributed by no more than one-tenth of one percent of the voting age population.” One may reasonably doubt that this one tenth of one percent is representative of the electorate or the population at large. > > \ > > Special interests buy favors from congressmen and presidents through political action committees (PACs), devices by which groups like corporations, professional associations, trade unions, investment banking groups – can pool their money and give $10,000 per election to each House and Senate candidate. Today there are more than 4,000 Political Action Committees (PACs) of various kinds registered with the Federal Election Commission; in 1974, when they were sanctioned by law, there were only 500. PAC money is driving campaign costs to new heights. In 1992, the average Senate incumbent spent more than $3.6 million for re-election; that is the equivalent of raising $12,000 a week in a single six-year term. Members of Congress, by comparison, spend only an average of $557,403 to be re-elected – a “mere” $5,000 a week for a two-year term. The average cost of a House campaign has risen to this level from $140,000 in 1980 – and $52,000 in 1974. > > The chief beneficiaries of rising campaign costs and PAC contributions have been incumbents. In 1972, 52 cents of the average PAC dollar went to incumbents, compared to 25 cents to challengers (the rest went to candidates for open seats); in the 1988 House elections, incumbents received 84.4 cents of each PAC dollar and challengers only 8.6 cents. It makes more sense for lobbies to buy access to established members of Congress and senators – particularly those with important leadership positions – than to fund challengers, who, if elected, would have no seniority and little influence. . . . Former Senator Barry Goldwater has lamented, “The Founding Fathers would frown in their graves if they saw us rationing candidacies sheerly on the basis of money: who has – or can raise – the millions necessary to run for office.” > > Democrats, when they were members of the majority party, received more PAC money than Republicans, though both parties are saturated with it. Contrary to conservative claims that liberal lobby groups dominate Congress, PAC funds come overwhelmingly from business: in 1990, 65 percent of PAC contributions came from business PACs, compared to 24 percent from labor and only 11 percent from ideological groups (including conservative as well as liberal pressure groups). “At one point,” John Judis has pointed out, “the American Petroleum Institute employed more lobbyists in Washington than the entire labor movement.” They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs. From the same book, pp. 311-313: > [@](#): > > Today’s U.S. government is democratic in form but plutocratic in substance. . . . In a misguided 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit spending by rich Americans promoting their own candidacies. This decision was to the equalization of voting power what Dred Scott was to abolitionism. In The Yale Law Review, Jamin Raskin and John Boniface have argued that political candidates in the United States must win a “wealth primary.” Candidates without enormous amounts of money, either from their own fortunes or from rich individuals and special interest groups, cannot hope to win the party primaries – much less general elections. Indeed, the Buckley decision is one reason why more than half the members of the Senate today are millionaires. . . . > > \*\*It is time to build a wall of separation between check and state. \*\*Curing the disease of plutocratic politics requires a correct diagnosis of its cause: the costs of political advertising. The basic problem is that special interests buy access and favors by donating the money needed for expensive political advertising in the media. Elaborate schemes governing the flow of money do nothing to address the central problem: paid political advertising. Instead of devising unworkable limits on campaign financing that leave the basic system intact, we should cut the Gordian knot of campaign corruption by simply outlawing paid political advertising on behalf of any candidate for public office. The replacement of political advertising by free informational public service notices in the electronic and print media would level the playing field of politics and kill off an entire parasitic industry of media consultants and spin doctors. > > An outright ban on paid political advertising and the imposition of free time requirements on the media are radical measures, but nothing less is necessary if we are to prevent our government from continuing to be sold to the highest bidders. **The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were.** It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.\* > > \*A much more compelling analogy would be between the electoral process and the judicial system, with the electorate playing the role of the jury. In our system of trial by jury, there are elaborate rules governing the presentation of evidence to the jury by plaintiff and defendant (the “candidates”). If our judicial system were organized the way our judicial system is, then rich candidates would be allowed to buy time before the jury. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, in one Senate election, outspent his opponent by 300 to 1; the equivalent, in the judicial system, would be allowing a rich defendant to buy, say, six months to present his side of the case, while the poor plaintiff might be able to purchase only twenty minutes for his side. “Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker. FWIW, some [Wikiquotes on campaign-finance reform:](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Politics#Campaign_finance_reform) “Today’s political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations.” Senator Bill Bradley, 2000. “We’ve got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It’s a terrible system.” Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000). “You’re more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate.” Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform “Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy.” Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996). "[Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I’ve ever read. "Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990). “We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue.” Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989). “Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate?” Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988). “The day may come when we’ll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn’t come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today.” George Washington Plunkett (1905). “Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune.” James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/56 "2014-04-02T20:22:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, let’s not do the dumb arguments again that we heard in the wake of Citizens United. There is no drowning out effect. We do not need to stop some people from speaking so that others can be heard. There is no finite amount of speech such that rich people can buy it all, leaving us with none. Of course there is, as between **competing** messages. What is finite is not the speakers’ speech but the voters’ attention. It works the same way in commercial advertising, doesn’t it? Even with an inferior product, you can probably outsell your competitor if your advertising budget is bigger. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/57 "2014-04-02T20:28:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Could you be a bit more specific about the parade of horribles you foresee? I am generally willing to bow to your wisdom on this sort of thing but it feels like you’re operating very much on a hunch here. Each legal course has a different parade. But let me paint a plausible picture for you. Imagine there’s a major terrorist attack perpetrated by, I don’t know, Estonians. In the wake of the attack, Congress passes legislation that says you can no longer donate to entities doing charitable work in Estonia promoting breast cancer awareness because there’s too high a risk that the funds will aid or end up in the hands of shadowy Estonian radicals. Or, if you prefer, imagine a Tea Party Congress and President Rubio decide to outlaw private donations to organizations that promote comprehensive sex education in Mexico. In a world in which money is not speech (or association), you have no protected First Amendment interest in funding these organizations. I think that’s a big problem. And lest you think this is entirely fanciful, it’s not. The first scenario above concerning the Estonians is essentially what the Bush Administration tried to do with the material support statutes in the wake of 9/11. Most of the First Amendment challenges were ultimately rejected (in split decisions), but the issue is live and evolving. Declaring that money is not speech would critically wound the effort to fight back against overbroad material support laws. Those are examples outside the world of politics, but other examples in that world also demonstrate the point. If Congress can forbid a group of citizens from pooling their money into a legal organization and airing a movie denouncing Hilary Clinton right before an election, then Congress can forbid Comedy Central from ridiculing Sarah Palin right before an election. Now, if you want to try to confine your “money is not speech” rationale solely to political contributions to candidate for office, you need to add some other justification, like corruption. That’s a different path with a different parade of horribles. But they are equally horrible. Allowing a generic corruption rationale to trump admitted speech is also a nasty can of worms. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/58 "2014-04-02T20:30:36Z")
One thing I’m interested in (and it’s been touched on by a few posts in this very thread, but I’d like more detail) is a specific outlaying by conservatives of why they don’t believe (as liberals do) that loosening/eliminating campaign contribution laws essentially allows the rich to buy elections/government pawns. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/59 "2014-04-02T20:37:42Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I am under the impression that confined and cabined are synonyms. > > To expand on my point a little further, I think you have basically three legal paths if you want to restrict campaign contributions: (1) You say money isn’t speech; (2) You say the threat of corruptions outweighs the speech interest; and/or (3) You say there’s some democracy or equality value that outweighs the speech interest. > > I don’t think any of those are viable without opening the door for this Court or a more conservative one to do things to free speech that the Left would hate. I think #2 and #3 get hard to define. I’m all for #1, especially because in the Internet era, money really _isn’t_ speech. People can build up followings online without needing any money to do so, if they’ve got something to say that strikes a chord with people. What money allows you to do is skip the step of having to build a following. I don’t see how defining speech to exclude money would bother a liberal. I think it would encourage small-d democracy, whatever point on the political compass it comes from. I don’t mind that teabaggers can get their word out; the problem is when the Koch brothers are essentially using them as Astroturf. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/60 "2014-04-02T20:41:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Of course there is, as between **competing** messages. What is finite is not the speakers’ speech but the voters’ attention. It works the same way in commercial advertising, doesn’t it? Even with an inferior product, you can probably outsell your competitor if your advertising budget is bigger. When corrected for popularly, which tends to increase donations, there is little evidence that spending is an effective way to win an election for a candidate. Nor is there evidence that individuals giving small amounts to a varying number of candidates increased corruption. If this had been shown the decision may have gone the other way. This law was an attempt to stack the deck in the favor of particular interests and it did so by violating a fundimental right. I am not happy with what the potential impact of this decision is. However it was the correct decision. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168.md?page=4)