Los Angeles Times
|
|
Money
won. Doesn't it always? It was not a big surprise that the Supreme
Court's 5-4 decision today striking down certain limits on federal
campaign contributions was divided along partisan lines.
Fellow Americans please don't vote until the Zionist scum is out of U.S.Supreme Court and the U.S.Financial Military Industrial Complex.Your children are only used for cannon fodder,please don't let them fight for the UK - Israeli Rothschild interests in the Middle East because they will have no country or home to come back to and if they peacefully protest international offshore theft of your former wealth through international Wall Street and Wshington,D.C. ZIONIST MONEY LAUNDERERS their lives are only put in danger by terrorists the Israeli and UK City of London Nazis or Nations Zionists,(NOT National Socialists),put out on the street with guns and terrost agent provacateurs to do them harm !
So the only real statement or 'vote' we can make is NOT o vote at all.Barack Obama the 'Democrat' was and is a CIA prostitute with CIA MASSACRE LINKS TO 1960'S Indonesia and UK Empirialist links to Kenya where his grandfather who he called a 'nigger' FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE HIMSELF DOES - WORK FOR THE VERY BRITSH LORDS OR Lards he denounced his grandfather for..AND IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE IF YOU CONTINUE TO BUY INTO THE FARCE.It was Netherlands Dutch Royal Shell and BP who won as a result of 9/11 and they played a role in it and still aid and bett and work with Israelis and American Air Force or Air Frce Generals such as those ensconsed in the NSA.It was
Little Black Rambo Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro whose stepfather was an Indonesian mass murderer who has defrauded and committed tresons against white Asian and African Americans alike - even the new batch of CIA and Israeli Zionist protitutes and 'teabaggers' are prostitites of Israel and the City of London and BP and Dutch Royal Shell who are the biggest beneficiarties of W Bush and his partner in crime Barack Obama's massacres there.
To give an idea of just how concerned Obama is about Americans note that BP,nor its partner in crime Dick Cheney's Haliburton,WAS NEVER brought to justice for the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.When did Russia ever do anything like that to us !?Instead Obama and the Zionist prostitutes in Congress still pay them for a monopoly contrct to fuel U.S.Military craft !THE ROTHSCHILD FINANCIAL MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IS STILL BEHIND THE SCENES AND VERY POWRFUL IN RUSSIA AS WELL WHERE VLADMIR PUTIN SEVERAL YEARS AGO SIMPLY TRANSFERED ALL SHARES OF YUKOS OIL TO THE ROTHSCHILD'S AFTER JAILING ITS RUSSIAN JEWISH OLIGARCH WHO OBVIOUSLY JUST SERVING AND CONTROLLING YUKOS AT THE PLEASURE OF THE ROTHSCHILD FINANCIAL TERORISTS.We as Americans have much more in common with the Russians than with the elite Zionist scum of the City of London who are mainly Estern European Zionist Jews who are terrorizing the British 'little people' as well.Same for Zionist prostitute Angela Merkel who serves at the pleasure of the City of London and its Israeli terrorists !So I advise they all join the American peple and don't vote as well !
The so-called 'tea-party' is a bad joke because all of those scumbags support Israel Ubber Alies and the City of London Serco, BP,Dutch Royal Shell crime family as well ! Obama should be in jail for lieing through his pr agents for 15 years about being 'an African - American born in Kenya' ! I have never considered any black American born in Kenya to be an 'African-American' in the first place and I don't believe most real African-Americans would see an African migrant as a realAfrican American in the first generation either.Now Martin Luther King or Cynthia McKiney are REAL African-AMERICANS to me.
Israelis coming frelly across our borders or Arab or Islamic terrorists the CIA and FBI ALLOW IN ARE NOT AND NEVER SHOULD BE AMERICANS !AND JUST LIKE AT THIS SCUM WHO CALL THEMSELVES HISPANIC 'TEA PARTY' LEADERS :
Days after election victory: 'Tea Party' coming to Israel - Israel News ...
Nov 3, 2010 - News: Newly elected senator for Florida, republican Marco Rubio will arrive in Israel on Sunday; Pro-Israel AIPAC lobby expresses satisfaction ...
Senator Ted Cruz an Israeli Lackey - Texe Marrs
www.texemarrs.com/032013/ted_cruz.htm
Senator Ted Cruz—his real name is Rafael Cruz—from Texas is Congress' new ... Cruz was heavily supported by the fake “Tea Party” set up by the billionaire ...
Texe W Marrs
Now tell me how can the corrupt criminals Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or the Bush crime families hispanic bastard represent the intersets of Israel and the ongoing Bush mafia war crime family and at the sae timer represent Mexican and Latin Americns ? They CAN'T and DON'T obviously !
Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign giving limits
Politico-The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered another blow to already ... “It is hard to believe that a rational actor would engage in such ... donors to bundle huge sums and recreate the so-called soft-money ... Federal Election Commission, where the court concluded that corporations, nonprofits and unions ...Supreme Court Ruling Allows Hollywood to Spend Freely on ...
Explore in depth (839 more articles)Court could give corporations even more power
MSNBC-It's already a great time to be a corporation in America, but it may be about to get even better. ... in the Supreme Court over whether for-profit corporations can ignore a .... as private citizens and other associations when they spend money ... The idea of handing a bundle of privileges over to a narrow subset ...
http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20140402/NEWS01/140402006/Video-Locals-protest-Supreme-Court-lift-ban-aggregate-campaign-donations
Video: Locals protest Supreme Court lift of ban on aggregate campaign donations
Apr. 2, 2014 1:18 PM
|
0
Comments
Protesters react to Supreme Court ruling: Protesters gathered on the UI campus to picket a 5-4 Supreme Court Ruling in favor of a controversial bill dealing with campaign finance contributions.
Benita Caldwell, right, joined her peers on the UI pentacrest to protest Wednesday's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Iowa City, IA on Wednesday, April 2, 2014. In what was seen as a second round to the Citizens United decision that struck down limits on campaign contributions by corporations and unions to both individual candidates and political parties in 2010, Wednesday's 5-4 ruling in the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case ended certain monetary contribution limits to candidates and political parties by private individuals. Benjamin Roberts / Iowa City Press-Citizen / Benjamin Roberts / Iowa City Press-Citizen
ADVERTISEMENT
The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.
The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision leaves in place the base limits on what can be given to each individual campaign.
"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combating corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."
The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which came nearly six months after it was argued at the beginning of the court's term in October, marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics.
More immediately, it alters the political landscape ahead of November's midterm elections and could transform state contests as well. Legal experts said the ruling also erodes aggregate contribution limits imposed by the District of Columbia and 12 states, ranging from Connecticut to Wyoming.
It's the most important campaign-finance ruling since the high court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections.
The court's four liberal justices dissented vehemently from Roberts' ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the minority, said the decision "understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions."
"Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve," Breyer wrote.
The case pitted the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech – which the justices previously have equated with spending money in elections – against the government's interest in preventing political corruption. Roberts and the court's majority had little trouble siding with free speech.
"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse," he wrote.
The decision was a victory for the Republican National Committee, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, and Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, who challenged the $123,200 cap on contributions an individual can give to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees in a two-year election cycle.
McCutcheon's challenge did not extend to the $2,600 limit on how much a donor can give to a federal candidate in each primary and general election or the $32,400 limit that can go to a national party committee. Those limits, which guard against corruption, are at the root of the federal law.
In his ruling, Roberts reiterated the importance of those limits in protecting against political corruption.
"Our cases have held that Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption," he said. "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."
Under the court's ruling, donors will have to stick to that $2,600 limit but can give to as many campaigns as they want without worrying about the previous $123,200 ceiling. The decision also could jeopardize separate contribution caps in at least a dozen states, from Arizona to Wyoming.
"While I understand some base limits on the dollar amount of single contributions, limits to the overall number of candidates, parties and committees are nothing more than unnecessary limits to First Amendment freedom," McCutcheon said in reaction to the ruling. "The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of aggregate limits."
McConnell, perhaps the nation's leading opponent of campaign finance limits, noted the ruling doesn't lift restrictions on the most corruptible contributions.
"Let me be clear for all those who would criticize the decision: It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party," he said. "It just respects the constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support."
The limits on campaign contributions had stood for nearly 40 years. The high court drew a distinction between those contributions, which it said could lead to corruption, and money spent independently in its landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling. Independent spending was expanded in the Citizens United case to include unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions.
While four of the court's conservative justices joined the Roberts ruling, the fifth, Justice Clarence Thomas, went even further and said he would have voted to strike down Buckley. Thomas said there should be no difference in the regulation of spending and contributions.
"This case represents yet another missed opportunity to right the course of our campaign finance jurisprudence by restoring a standard that is faithful to the First Amendment," Thomas wrote. He agreed only with Roberts' decision, not its rationale.
Defenders of government limits have warned that so-called "joint fundraising committees" now will be able to funnel up to $3.6 million from one donor to any vulnerable candidates.
"With its Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, the Supreme Court has turned our representative system of government into a sandbox for America's billionaires and millionaires to play in," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the public interest group Democracy 21. "The court's decisions have empowered a new class of American political oligarchs."
But other campaign finance watchdogs took solace in the court's decision to leave intact limits that cap individual donations to $2,600 for a primary or general election. "The base limits do not appear to be under immediate challenge," Paul Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, said.
Nearly 1.3 million people donated more than $200 to federal candidates, party committees and PACs last year, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. Only about 600 hit the maximum donation limit to federal candidates in the 2012 elections, the center found.
McCutcheon and his allies also argued that lifting the cumulative cap on contributions might help candidates and national parties counter the rising influence of new "super PACs." Those entities, ushered in partly by Citizens United and a separate lower court decision in 2010, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money independent of particular candidates.
............................
The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision leaves in place the base limits on what can be given to each individual campaign.
"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combating corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."
The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which came nearly six months after it was argued at the beginning of the court's term in October, marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics.
More immediately, it alters the political landscape ahead of November's midterm elections and could transform state contests as well. Legal experts said the ruling also erodes aggregate contribution limits imposed by the District of Columbia and 12 states, ranging from Connecticut to Wyoming.
It's the most important campaign-finance ruling since the high court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections.
The court's four liberal justices dissented vehemently from Roberts' ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the minority, said the decision "understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions."
"Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve," Breyer wrote.
The case pitted the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech – which the justices previously have equated with spending money in elections – against the government's interest in preventing political corruption. Roberts and the court's majority had little trouble siding with free speech.
"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse," he wrote.
The decision was a victory for the Republican National Committee, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, and Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, who challenged the $123,200 cap on contributions an individual can give to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees in a two-year election cycle.
McCutcheon's challenge did not extend to the $2,600 limit on how much a donor can give to a federal candidate in each primary and general election or the $32,400 limit that can go to a national party committee. Those limits, which guard against corruption, are at the root of the federal law.
In his ruling, Roberts reiterated the importance of those limits in protecting against political corruption.
"Our cases have held that Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption," he said. "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."
Under the court's ruling, donors will have to stick to that $2,600 limit but can give to as many campaigns as they want without worrying about the previous $123,200 ceiling. The decision also could jeopardize separate contribution caps in at least a dozen states, from Arizona to Wyoming.
"While I understand some base limits on the dollar amount of single contributions, limits to the overall number of candidates, parties and committees are nothing more than unnecessary limits to First Amendment freedom," McCutcheon said in reaction to the ruling. "The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of aggregate limits."
McConnell, perhaps the nation's leading opponent of campaign finance limits, noted the ruling doesn't lift restrictions on the most corruptible contributions.
"Let me be clear for all those who would criticize the decision: It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party," he said. "It just respects the constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support."
The limits on campaign contributions had stood for nearly 40 years. The high court drew a distinction between those contributions, which it said could lead to corruption, and money spent independently in its landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling. Independent spending was expanded in the Citizens United case to include unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions.
While four of the court's conservative justices joined the Roberts ruling, the fifth, Justice Clarence Thomas, went even further and said he would have voted to strike down Buckley. Thomas said there should be no difference in the regulation of spending and contributions.
"This case represents yet another missed opportunity to right the course of our campaign finance jurisprudence by restoring a standard that is faithful to the First Amendment," Thomas wrote. He agreed only with Roberts' decision, not its rationale.
Defenders of government limits have warned that so-called "joint fundraising committees" now will be able to funnel up to $3.6 million from one donor to any vulnerable candidates.
"With its Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, the Supreme Court has turned our representative system of government into a sandbox for America's billionaires and millionaires to play in," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the public interest group Democracy 21. "The court's decisions have empowered a new class of American political oligarchs."
But other campaign finance watchdogs took solace in the court's decision to leave intact limits that cap individual donations to $2,600 for a primary or general election. "The base limits do not appear to be under immediate challenge," Paul Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, said.
Nearly 1.3 million people donated more than $200 to federal candidates, party committees and PACs last year, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. Only about 600 hit the maximum donation limit to federal candidates in the 2012 elections, the center found.
McCutcheon and his allies also argued that lifting the cumulative cap on contributions might help candidates and national parties counter the rising influence of new "super PACs." Those entities, ushered in partly by Citizens United and a separate lower court decision in 2010, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money independent of particular candidates.
............................
Los Angeles Times
|
|
Money
won. Doesn't it always? It was not a big surprise that the Supreme
Court's 5-4 decision today striking down certain limits on federal
campaign contributions was divided along partisan lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment