# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/101 "2014-04-03T23:24:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Truth told, **elucidator** , John Grisham is sort of a mythic figure to a bunch of attorneys, practicing and non-, and I include myself in the list. Not that I regard him as a Hemingway or Faulkner, but I know so many guys who are convinced that if they just had the time to write it, they too have that best-selling legal thriller novel inside their heads, waiting to burst forth and get sold, optioned for a movie, and star Julia Roberts (or her 2014 equivalent) at which point they can give up the day job and churn out a novel per year to fantastic advances and huge royalty checks (and casting approval on future feature films). > > And…er… I’m not immune to that fantasy. I am. I’m a lawyer and I’ve read Grisham, but my literary fantasy would be to be an SF writer, be admired at cons, and not expect the movie options and Julia Roberts, etc. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/102 "2014-04-03T23:28:21Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > 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. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then why do they spend? > [@rat\_avatar](#): > > False dichotomy > > The fact that you have to spend money to win an election does not mean that money alone wins an election. So what? The latter was never implied, and is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/103 "2014-04-03T23:35:38Z")
I guess the debate about money buying buying elections will be answered in the Senator Pryor / Tom Cotton race. The attack ads started late last summer against Pryor. It’s been a steady drumbeat week after week. Not just TV and radio. I’ve even seen them on youtube! Somebody is spending a massive amount of money to buy this election. Now SCOTUS makes it even easier for the PAC’s to choose our elected representatives. Just incredible. I’m not a big fan of Pryor. He votes to closely with Obama for my taste. But I resent outside groups using their money to take him out. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/104 "2014-04-04T00:00:25Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 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. I’m reading [The Brethren](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brethren_(non-fiction)) now. The book came out in 1979, but I don’t think this part changed: The Supreme Court judges who are hard-working read the briefs. Then, they listen to oral arguments. Then they meet in conference and say how they will decide. Then someone gets choosen to write the majority opinion. Now, where is this process do justices get forced to allow censorship of Comedy Central? I am missing it. I don’t think it is intellectually difficult to find language distinguishing between campaign spending and Comedy Central. But if it is, about half the justices will be up to the challenge, and the others have law clerks to take care of it for them. By the way, this could go in both directions. I can see the possibility of justices who would see campaign spending as real political speech worthy of protection, whereas Comedy Central is entertainment rather than speech. They don’t have to consistent, on account of their being Supreme. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/105 "2014-04-04T00:07:12Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I’m reading [The Brethren](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brethren_(non-fiction)) now. The book came out in 1979, but I don’t think this part changed: > > The Supreme Court judges who are hard-working read the briefs. Then, they listen to oral arguments. Then they meet in conference and say how they will decide. Then someone gets choosen to write the majority opinion. > > Now, where is this process do justices get forced to allow censorship of Comedy Central? I am missing it. > > I don’t think it is intellectually difficult to find language distinguishing between campaign spending and Comedy Central. But if it is, about half the justices will be up to the challenge, and the others have law clerks to take care of it for them. > > By the way, this could go in both directions. I can see the possibility of justices who would see campaign spending as real political speech worthy of protection, whereas Comedy Central is entertainment rather than speech. They don’t have to consistent, on account of their being Supreme. You’re willing to agree that the Supreme Court’s role should be a sort of super-legislature: they should craft decisions to get to the social goal or policy they want – nudge Congress when it loses sight of what the correct governing policy should be? ---
**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 4, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/106 "2014-04-04T00:15:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So what? The latter was never implied, and is irrelevant. 😕 > [@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. … If money alone doesn’t “buy elections” what were you opining about earlier. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/107 "2014-04-04T01:57:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re willing to agree that the Supreme Court’s role should be a sort of super-legislature: they should craft decisions to get to the social goal or policy they want – nudge Congress when it loses sight of what the correct governing policy should be? I was describing what is, not what should be. Realistically, if you give people political power, they will use it to, in your words, 'get to the social goal or policy they want." ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/108 "2014-04-04T03:24:45Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I guess the debate about money buying buying elections will be answered in the Senator Pryor / Tom Cotton race. > > The attack ads started late last summer against Pryor. It’s been a steady drumbeat week after week. Not just TV and radio. I’ve even seen them on youtube! Somebody is spending a massive amount of money to buy this election. > > Now SCOTUS makes it even easier for the PAC’s to choose our elected representatives. Just incredible. > > I’m not a big fan of Pryor. He votes to closely with Obama for my taste. But I resent outside groups using their money to take him out. In practice, incumbents almost never lose unless outside groups get involved. A relatively less known challenger can never outraise an incumbent, nor compete with the favors the incumbent can hand out to buy supporters. Knowing that, it’s not a wonder that incumbents really want to stop outside spending. Problem is, outside spending has been protected since 1976. That’s an old precedent that is about as likely to be overturned as Roe. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/109 "2014-04-04T03:30:24Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Yes they are - Money is speech. If you assume the opposite, then the ruling makes no sense of course. The idea that money itself is not speech was my personal opinion. However, the decision made here doesn’t make sense if money is speech. They can’t very well hold up some limits on money but not others if money itself is protected by the 1st amendment. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/110 "2014-04-04T05:27:34Z")
Won’t this SCOTUS decision make the problem much worse? I don’t fully understand the ruling but it seems like the PAC’s and Special Interests will have much more influence on elections. > [@adaher](#): > > In practice, incumbents almost never lose unless outside groups get involved. A relatively less known challenger can never outraise an incumbent, nor compete with the favors the incumbent can hand out to buy supporters. > > Knowing that, it’s not a wonder that incumbents really want to stop outside spending. Problem is, outside spending has been protected since 1976. That’s an old precedent that is about as likely to be overturned as Roe. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/111 "2014-04-04T06:15:55Z")
PACs aren’t much of a problem per se, since they often have a lot of small donors. Some do, some don’t. Special interests are the same way, and they have other forms of leverage over politicians besides donations. The NRA for example, strikes fear into the heart of nearly every Congressmen just by saying they will grade a vote. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/112 "2014-04-04T06:20:17Z")
The ruling left intact the so called “base” limits. So there is still a limit on how much an individual can give to any one PAC (currently $5,000). Now you could give that $5,000 to an unlimited number of PACs. In particularly heated contests attracting a lot of outside support we could hypothetically see multiple PACs effectively devoted to a single candidate: PAC to elect Joe Smith PAC to elect Joe Smith in 2014 PAC to elect Joe Smith to the 1st District PAC to elect Joe Smith now… etc… and a donor could donate $5000 to each of those. The PAC cannot donate to a candidate’s committee or coordinate directly with the campaign but can expend unlimited sums in a way that would help a particular candidate or political platform. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/113 "2014-04-04T07:22:46Z")
The NY Times fails at self-awareness: > **[Opinion | The Court Follows the Money (Published 2014)](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/the-court-follows-the-money.html?ref=opinion)** > > Five justices voted to eliminate sensible contribution limits to federal campaigns, giving those few people with the most money the loudest voice in politics. The NY Times, a company which spends millions of dollars promoting its political views, thinks money in politics is distorting. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/114 "2014-04-04T12:46:59Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The NY Times fails at self-awareness: > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/the-court-follows-the-money.html?ref=opinion](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/the-court-follows-the-money.html?ref=opinion) > > The NY Times, a company which spends millions of dollars promoting its political views, thinks money in politics is distorting. Which candidates does the NY Times give campaign contributions to? Yeah, I thought so. ---
**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 4, 2014, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/115 "2014-04-04T14:01:21Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I would be OK with a law that forbade him\* from funding their get-the-word-out operations\*, if it meant that every other billionaire was similarly handicapped with respect to the publicity/message operations of every other organization. I think your attempts to draw lines between funding of their speech and funding of their research and investigations would be, in practice, impossible. They research so they can write reports, which are unequivocally speech. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > But when you have issues with a lot of people on one side, and a relative handful of people but a lot of money on the other side, and the money carries the day for the tiny minority, then democracy is getting screwed, good and hard. And if that happens _routinely_, then we don’t really have a democracy, do we? I’m very sympathetic to this concern. What I don’t see is an obvious way to prevent that which doesn’t cause more harm than good. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I don’t think it is intellectually difficult to find language distinguishing between campaign spending and Comedy Central. But if it is, about half the justices will be up to the challenge, and the others have law clerks to take care of it for them. > > By the way, this could go in both directions. I can see the possibility of justices who would see campaign spending as real political speech worthy of protection, whereas Comedy Central is entertainment rather than speech. They don’t have to consistent, on account of their being Supreme. The point was that if the precedent establishes that funding for First Amendment activities is not itself a First Amendment activity–categorically–then a whole host of genuine First Amendment protections are lost. In that scenario, the Justices may well find a way to save Comedy Central, but it wouldn’t be by arguing that the corporation has a First Amendment right to fund Jon Stewart’s speech in order to put him on the air. If what you’re saying is that you wouldn’t want a categorical disconnect between funding and speech activities, then you’re saying there should be other factors involved, such as generic appearances of corruption (i.e., Breyer’s view of corruption rather than Roberts). And that’s fine, but I haven’t seen such a factor yet that isn’t similarly ripe for abuse in denying speech rights to politically unpopular groups. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/116 "2014-04-04T14:51:53Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > 😕 > > … > > If money alone doesn’t “buy elections” what were you opining about earlier. Money is not the **only** thing that wins elections, but if it puts the preferred candidate over the top, the election has been bought. More importantly, if the candidate has any reason to **think** the money made the difference, the candidate has been bought. Sometimes, I’ve heard, megadonors give to both sides so the winner is sure to owe them. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/117 "2014-04-04T14:53:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The NY Times, a company which spends millions of dollars promoting its political views . . . :rolleyes: No, you’re thinking of Fox News. There’s no equivalence. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/118 "2014-04-04T14:54:37Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > In that scenario, the Justices may well find a way to save Comedy Central . . . From what? ---
**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 4, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/119 "2014-04-04T15:09:46Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > From what? The earlier point was that if there is a categorical ruling that money is not speech, then there’s no constitutional principle forbidding a statute that says something like “non-candidates may not spend more than $100,000 to fund messages concerning candidates for office within 90 days of an election.” Such a law would mean Jon Stewart couldn’t criticize Sarah Palin, etc. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168/120 "2014-04-04T16:04:14Z")
I, for one, welcome our new rich and powerful overlords! Oh, wait, nothing “new” about that at all, is there? And they don’t give a rat’s whether I welcome them or not, do they? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-strikes-down-aggregate-campaign-donation-limits/685168.md?page=7)