Yay, Free $peech! Amurka Ha$ Be$t Democracy U Can Buy!

[eynon81]

[The Comrade]

yeah but usually it's some six degrees of kevin bacon interpretation of an interpretation of a precedent. they just tied money directly to the first amendment with very little legalese to obfuscate.

their frank and direct route to plutocracy basically ensured they're going to be inundated with a bunch of bullshit lawsuits about money and free speech. in essence, they've already begun the downfall of this precedent.

[eynon81]

[The Dude]

[John Galt]

the ruling sadly didn't get rid of all restrictions on speech and only the limit on the amount of candidates was removed. indy goes insane over nothing, again

[eynon81]

[The Dude]

[eynon81]

[Professor]

OK, I think that this actually is being made into a bigger deal that it actually is.

According to CNN this morning, the CURRENT law says that a donor may only give up to $2600 to any one candidate, and may give no more than $48,600 to all candidates combined. In other words, if a person gives the $2600 max donation to as many candidates as possible, then they may only donate to 19 candidates (18 candidates at $2600, and 1 candidate at $1800). This ruling KEEPS the $2600 limit, but says that a donor may contribute to as many candidates as s/he wants.

In other words, we don't have to worry about a single donor giving $1 million to a candidate to "buy" their vote. It simply means that he can give $2600 to as many candidates as s/he wants. I think that most rational people would agree that, when a successful run for a House seat costs $1.6 million and a Senate seat costs $10.4 million, a measly $2600 donation (0.1% of a House seat and 0.025% of a Senate seat) isn't going to buy a vote. So if it's not going to buy a vote for 18 candidates, how is it going to buy any votes for >18 candidates?

[Saz]

And what happens when the same 500 people donate 2600 to every house candidate their party runs? That's all it would take to meet a parties ENTIRE national fundraising efforts. No one is worried about the individual candidates becoming beholden to individual donors. We are worries the PARTIES will become beholden to individual donors because now individual donors can effectively give 3+ million to a party every 2 years.

That said, I agree with Thomas.

"I adhere to the view that this courts decision in Buckley v. Valeo denigrates core first amendment speech and should be overturned."

Get rid of all campaign finance limits. Either do them properly or don't do them at all. The Koch brothers aren't nearly as rich as they think. I would love to see them get absolutely destroyed by truly wealthy libs like zuckerberg, gates or Buffett.