Chief Justice continues his crusade to end all laws concerning money limitations for politicians.
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
The more $$$ you have the more free speech you get??? No cash = no free speech?
I'm glad I can read the actual opinions of the Court. If I had to rely on what other people inject into the conversation, I'd be very misinformed, and likely have erroneous opinions myself.
Actually sort of interesting to speculate as to what may happen here.
Start with the basic proposition that very few people are actually stupid enough to suggest a quid pro quo for a campaign contribution. Rather, most contributions are about "access". And locally and depending on a member's committee's a certain amount of that will stay constant.
Remember too that most members are incumbents...and tend to be for a long time. So there's a fine line between retrospective contributions for repayment of last election's loans, and prospective contributions for the next one.
First, and on the one hand, a case could be made that the decision could actually defer the flow of money for those that don't have immediate or continual need. If you can get access after the fact by contributing to a loan repayment solicitation after a candidate is actually elected, and not have to actually risk donating to the loser, that's not a bad thing for a donor with limited resources.
On the other hand, this dynamic might actually enhance the dichotomy between "loyalists" who contribute early, and "johnny come latelies" who contribute later.
Finally, what's it really mean? More candidates who are rich, loaning their campaigns money. It seems to me that there's a diminishing return for that, and it's a bridge we probably already crossed anyway.
Start with the basic proposition that very few people are actually stupid enough to suggest a quid pro quo for a campaign contribution. Rather, most contributions are about "access". And locally and depending on a member's committee's a certain amount of that will stay constant.
Remember too that most members are incumbents...and tend to be for a long time. So there's a fine line between retrospective contributions for repayment of last election's loans, and prospective contributions for the next one.
First, and on the one hand, a case could be made that the decision could actually defer the flow of money for those that don't have immediate or continual need. If you can get access after the fact by contributing to a loan repayment solicitation after a candidate is actually elected, and not have to actually risk donating to the loser, that's not a bad thing for a donor with limited resources.
On the other hand, this dynamic might actually enhance the dichotomy between "loyalists" who contribute early, and "johnny come latelies" who contribute later.
Finally, what's it really mean? More candidates who are rich, loaning their campaigns money. It seems to me that there's a diminishing return for that, and it's a bridge we probably already crossed anyway.
Supreme Court agrees with Cruz, strikes campaign contribution restriction
The Supreme Court split along ideological lines Monday and agreed with Sen. Ted Cruz’s challenge to a law limiting post-election political contributions to repay a candidate’s loan to his campaign. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) asked the court to take the case, after a three-judge panel...
iowa.forums.rivals.com
Tell CBS News they can only spend $250,000 to broadcast their news.
I think when you put it like that more people realize that a limit on campaign spending is an effort to limit campaign messaging.
The ‘original sin’ of Citizens United was making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.
So now news is political campaigning? Some of you are comical.
I think all candidates should have the same pot of funds to draw from so all are on an even field and then your policy stances are left for people to judge a candidate on and not who or what PAC spends the most money on.
Then correct him with the language and your argument. No offense, but put up or shut up.
The opinion speaks for itself.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-12_new_k5fm.pdf
Essentially, candidates can loan themselves however much money they want. They can repay themselves. What's magical about 20 days after the election?
Eh bullshit. "Access" IS the quid. "Access" is the BIG quid, the only quid that really matters. Without "access" there would be no quo.
No, I think ’the news’ falls under freedom of speech much like someone discussing a person running for office.
It was truly an absurdity that in a nation that enshrined freedom of speech we had politicians trying to block us from pooling our resources to disseminate communications about them near elections. We were free to talk about them the rest of the year, but around elections!?! Tsk tsk.
From whom?
Am I supposed to fund the Communist Party of America with tax dollars so they get funds with the Constitution party, etc?
Will that make CBS spend as much of their airtime on the Unity Party of America and the Alliance Party, as they do the Democrats and GOP?
It seems to me like it would make their focus even more decisive.
Any likely-to-win candidate for a big office would be dumb not to take out loans now. Easy graft.
Go read the Kagan dissent. This is legalizing a candidate "loaning" himself $500 grand or whatever and then going out after the election and soliciting contributions from "donors" to pay himself back.
It's creating legalized bribery. It's horrible.
It already exists. Just up to 250k. Legally. Which presents some difficulties with arguing the necessity more broadly.
Last edited:
Yes, we the people should foot the bill for whatever candidates are running. A set figure should be determined and each has that amount to use. Give each candidate a set number of radio, online and tv ads. Then any and all who qualify should be allowed to be in the first debate.
There’s a lot to be said for the British process. And if it were constitutionally permissible I could get on board with public funding.
Very few good things have happened since the Citizen's United ruling. Roberts refuses to see how his decisions have affected this country and why history will not look fondly on the courts during his time as Chief Justice.
I've read the opinion. Speculation on what might happen is the argument Dems use against voting laws. Since the campaign money is all documented, everyone can see where it came from. In this case, Cruz had more than enough money to repay the loan. In fact he didn't even need a loan.
Last edited:
To be very clear, it's not so much that money "is" speech. It's that money is very much relevant to facilitating speech, and particularly the most important kind(s) of speech - political speech. And therein lies the rub when it comes to regulating it.
That’s the ruse. Rhetoric all day every day for decades to create the space for this type of (ultimately anti-conservatism in the classic sense of the isn) stuff to not just happen, but happen with complete, fealtyish support.
It’s simply amazing.
So, if you have more money than I do, and you are willing to spend it on political speech, your voice should be lounder than mine because you are richer than I am? And because you have more money than I do, you can then incorporate into your campaign the talent needed to raise campaign funds - the funds that will reimburse you for your investment of the very funds that made your voice lounder than mine in the first place, because, you know, politics, and money is speech. Right?
No. The fallacy here is that money is the exclusive means of facilitating speech. There are plenty of other mechanisms for that.
At the end of the day, federal politics is actually a pretty level playing field when it comes to money. It's also a rich man's game, and has been for a long time, because even the most local races have become nationalized. But, thankfully, Tocqueville's observations about Americans' ability to organize themselves for pretty much any purpose under the sun still holds very much true.
Now with all that said, once my ship comes in from Soycoin investments, I'm going to run for president.
Last edited:
Similar threads
