Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

High Court Voids Overall Contribution Limit


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 ARSEN

ARSEN

    Banned

  • ALL-PRO
  • 12,730 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 09:28 AM

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has struck down limits in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees.

The justices said in a 5-4 vote Wednesday that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014. That includes a separate $48,600 cap on contributions to candidates.

But their decision does not undermine limits on individual contributions to candidates for president or Congress, now $2,600 an election.

 

 

http://news.yahoo.co...-141344886.html

 

87120765-government-not.jpg



#2 Cary Kollins

Cary Kollins

    tengo baking soda

  • ALL-PRO
  • 7,270 posts
  • LocationWinston-Salem, NC

Posted 02 April 2014 - 09:38 AM

As much as the right spent on Romney last election only to lose by 5 million votes. lulz

 

 

 

But is a shame the Supreme Court takes a stand for the uber-weathly while making it harder for people to vote by doing away with the Voting Rights Act.

 

 

 



#3 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,767 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 09:51 AM

Cary...only one candidate has raised $1billion in a single campaign.  It wasn't Romney. 

 

In fact...the new left's boogeymen, Koch bros, rank much lower than the dem donors.

 



#4 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,910 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 11:08 AM

Cary...only one candidate has raised $1billion in a single campaign.  It wasn't Romney. 

 

In fact...the new left's boogeymen, Koch bros, rank much lower than the dem donors.

 

Mitt Romney and Republicans raised 1.18 billion dollars last year.  Obama had more direct contributions to his campaign, but the Republicans raised 225 million in Super Pac money compare to 92 million by Democrats and the RNC raised 62 million more dollars than the DNC.

 

Also as far as Koch brothers are concerned you can only really make that claim if you only count disclosed contributions.  Not Super Pacs, etc.  The reality is a little different

 

kochspending-485x251-1.jpg

 

Edit:  When Super Pac and party donations are figured in Obama raised 1.2 billion dollars and Romney 1.18



#5 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,770 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 11:55 AM

Please don't confuse g5 with someone who holds a thoughtful opinion on anything. This is a big win for his ideas since democracy will not get things where he wants them to be. Therefore buying his ideology is hunky dory, along with making sure he defends VoteRID and mentioning Al Sharpton frequently.

#6 CarolinaCoolin

CarolinaCoolin

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,698 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 02 April 2014 - 12:25 PM

Honestly if I had a dollar everytime CWG mentions G5 in a post if be rich as fug

#7 Harris Aballah

Harris Aballah

    Fayette-Villian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,679 posts
  • Locationnorth carolina

Posted 02 April 2014 - 12:41 PM

Libs got a problem with people spending their money the way they want, while exercising their right to free speech. No surprise here!



#8 SteveSmithOwns

SteveSmithOwns

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 12:56 PM

as an independent who leans conservative, I really don't like this. This just gives more control to the already rich elite. they don't need more power....

 

 

I wish we could eliminate all political funding, and just have candidates debate in public forum during the election season. You want to hear their views on things, listen to that. no attack ads, no useless waste of money. think of all the good the money that is going to corrupt or soon to be corrupt politicians could be for places that are actually trying to help.



#9 Bronn

Bronn

    Sellsword

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,022 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 01:13 PM

Libs got a problem with people spending their money the way they want, while exercising their right to free speech. No surprise here!

 

I think the real problem is with the way "people" come by "their money" in the first place.



#10 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,767 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 01:19 PM

Unions should be treated as SuperPACs, but I do see Romney went over 1B...I guess I confused him with McCain's campaign.  Either way...Obama's raised 1B twice. 



#11 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,481 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 02 April 2014 - 01:26 PM

Welp, I guess hillary clinton vs Jeb Bush really is going to happen in 2016.



#12 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,931 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 02 April 2014 - 02:13 PM

Private funding of elections should be eliminated or at least capped at 100.00 dollars per person.

Candidates should be elected based on their ideas, not their personal wealth or their ability to raise huge sums of money.

#13 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,767 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 02:25 PM

I agree.  Only donations are allowed are individual donations.  Period.  Not collected by a group on your behalf.  Not collected as part of dues/membership/whatever. 

 

Americans had an opportunity to elect a guy that was the poster boy for campaign finance reform and they elected our current president. 



#14 ARSEN

ARSEN

    Banned

  • ALL-PRO
  • 12,730 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 02:34 PM

I agree. Only donations are allowed are individual donations. Period. Not collected by a group on your behalf. Not collected as part of dues/membership/whatever.

Americans had an opportunity to elect a guy that was the poster boy for campaign finance reform and they elected our current president.


80% of Americans are sheep... They believe what they see and hear on TV. They too dumb to make their own rational decision, instead they rely on other people opinion.

#15 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,910 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 02:39 PM

Unions should be treated as SuperPACs, but I do see Romney went over 1B...I guess I confused him with McCain's campaign.  Either way...Obama's raised 1B twice. 

 

Unions aren't Super PACs but they are PACs,  they are just c(6)s instead of c(4) 

 

They have to disclose their donors and must detail all their political activities and lobbying both directly in the form of contributions to campaigns and indirectly in the form of paid advertisements.

 

Also I believe members of unions are able to opt out of political contributions so they aren't forced to pay for these things out of their dues.

 

Unions have more oversight and regulations than Super PACs when it comes to political activities.

 

I do agree with you however, that all contributions should be by individuals and they should eliminate bundling, corporate donations, and PAC donations or campaigning 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com