SCOTUS strikes down aggregate campaign donation limits

[Richard_Parker]

@RTFirefly

I don’t mind that teabaggers can get their word out; the problem is when the Koch brothers are essentially using them as Astroturf.

Are you also against George Soros using Human Rights Watch as “Astroturf” for human rights issues?

I assume not. But you can’t have one without the other, I don’t think.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@adaher

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.

Say you want to buy a tax preference. Accelerated depreciation for copper mining, say. Or zinc. You can donate $250,000 to the GOP and maybe they will do your bidding. Hey it happens: I think they called them Pioneers. No quid pro quo though.

Or you can donate $10,000 to the rep in your pocket and $2000 to all reps who have voted your way in the past. Still no quid pro quo, but you now have a heightened ability to reward and punish.

[rat_avatar]

@RTFirefly

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.

So you are willing to toss out the freedom of the press.

It costs money to publish. Now matter if that money is to print election mailers or for George Takai’s internet bill.

Previous to citizens united he would have been under a gag order previous to an election.

Only the animals that were more equal than other animals like Fox News were exempt.

And if you didn’t know the freedom of the press is a right to publish not a protection of an industry

[BrainGlutton]

@Richard_Parker

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.

I should still like more details about them.

[BrainGlutton]

@Leaper

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.

What makes you think they don’t believe it?

[BrainGlutton]

@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.

Then why do they spend?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Richard_Parker

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.

I was under the impression that Congress had pretty much always been able to regulate the flow of money outside the US as part of its foreign relations power. It never really occurred to me that there might be a constitutional problem with the material support statutes.

[BrainGlutton]

@rat_avatar

And if you didn’t know the freedom of the press is a right to publish not a protection of an industry

No? When I went to journalism school, one of my profs (in Law of Mass Communications) noted proudly that the press is the only “industry” specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

[RTFirefly]

@Richard_Parker

Are you also against George Soros using Human Rights Watch as “Astroturf” for human rights issues?

He’s doing a piss-poor job of it, that’s all I can say.

At any rate, let both sides slug it out without the billionaires, yes.

[RTFirefly]

@rat_avatar

So you are willing to toss out the freedom of the press.

No.

It costs money to publish. Now matter if that money is to print election mailers or for George Takai’s internet bill.

True, but not very much, does it?

First of all, nobody’s gonna pass a law saying you can’t spend any money at all for speech. A de-linking of money and speech allows regulation of spending money on speech; it doesn’t outlaw it.

But if you’re worried about that, there are plenty of other ways around this. Could write an amount beneath which spending on speech could not be regulated. Take the cost of a really jazzy website, multiply by 10. Put that in your Constitutional amendment, include an inflation adjustment.

This really isn’t hard, unless you want it to be.

Previous to citizens united he would have been under a gag order previous to an election.

Only the animals that were more equal than other animals like Fox News were exempt.

And if you didn’t know the freedom of the press is a right to publish not a protection of an industry

This part I find unintelligible.

[Leaper]

@BrainGlutton

What makes you think they don’t believe it?

That Pit thread of yours? There are a few here and there that seemed to assert that major spending by wealthy individuals wasn’t harmful to the democratic process.

[Leaper]

An additional thought: reading this article, it occurred to me that conservatives could just use rulings like this, and their consequences, as an argument for smaller government and deregulation! After all, if we just gave corporations the power to do whatever they wanted unfettered by anything but the almighty free market, they wouldn’t have to bribe government officials!

It’s kind of tidy, actually.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

With this ruling and the Fort Hood shooting, it feels like 2009 again…

[BrainGlutton]

@Leaper

That Pit thread of yours? There are a few here and there that seemed to assert that major spending by wealthy individuals wasn’t harmful to the democratic process.

Assert != believe.

[Leaper]

Then asking them to explain their justification would be particularly interesting, wouldn’t it?

[adaher]

@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.

I’m not sure what the details of that are, but I do know that if speech was governed the same way, we would have no effective right to free speech, since the only speech that doesn’t cost money is what you say within shouting distance unassisted. It would not apply to internet speech, for example, which necessarily involves commerce, or even something so simple as a microphone and podium. Such speech would be regulatable.

[adaher]

@Measure_for_Measure

Say you want to buy a tax preference. Accelerated depreciation for copper mining, say. Or zinc. You can donate $250,000 to the GOP and maybe they will do your bidding. Hey it happens: I think they called them Pioneers. No quid pro quo though.

Or you can donate $10,000 to the rep in your pocket and $2000 to all reps who have voted your way in the past. Still no quid pro quo, but you now have a heightened ability to reward and punish.

You can’t buy a politician with the relatively small max donation. No rep is going to jeopardize their future giving someone who gave them $2000 or even $10,000 what they want.

If you want to have real influence, you become a bundler. That’s a loophole Congress should close, but one I doubt they have any interest in closing.

[Bricker]

In my view, this was a compelling section of the opinion:

@SCOTUS

The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute. Our cases have held that Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption. (citations omitted). At the same time, we have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others. . . .

Many people might find those latter objectives attractive: They would be delighted to see fewer television commercials touting a candidate’s accomplishments or disparaging an opponent’s character. Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades–despite the profound offense such spectacles cause–it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

In my view, this was a compelling section of the opinion:

Many people might find those latter objectives attractive: They would be delighted to see fewer television commercials touting a candidate’s accomplishments or disparaging an opponent’s character.

For “many people,” substitute “practically everybody.”

[Bricker]

@Bricker

In my view, this was a compelling section of the opinion:

oops:

@SCOTUS (internal citations omitted)

The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right is not absolute. Our cases have held that Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption. . . . At the same time, we have made clear that Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others. . . .

Many people might find those latter objectives attractive: They would be delighted to see fewer television commercials touting a candidate’s accomplishments or disparaging an opponent’s character. Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades–despite the profound offense such spectacles cause–it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.
.
.
.
In a series of cases over the past 40 years, we have spelled out how to draw the constitutional line between the permissible goal of avoiding corruption in the political process and the impermissible desire simply to limit political speech. We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. “Ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption.” . . . They embody a central feature of democracy–that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.

Any regulation must instead target what we have called “quid pro quo” corruption or its appearance. . . . That Latin phrase captures the notion of a direct exchange of an official act for money. . . . “The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.” . . . Campaign finance restrictions that pursue other objectives, we have explained, impermissibly inject the Government “into the debate over who should govern.” . . . . And those who govern should be the last people to help decide who should govern.

The statute at issue in this case imposes two types of limits on campaign contributions. The first, called base limits, restricts how much money a donor may contribute to a particular candidate or committee. . . . . The second, called aggregate limits, restricts how much money a donor may contribute in total to all candidates or committees.

This case does not involve any challenge to the base limits, which we have previously upheld as serving the permissible objective of combatting corruption. The Government contends that the aggregate limits also serve that objective, by preventing circumvention of the base limits. We conclude, however, that the aggregate limits do little, if anything, to address that concern, while seriously restricting participation in the democratic process. The aggregate limits are therefore invalid under the First Amendment.