Originally posted by JS357 "Washington (CNN) -- If you're rich and want to give money to a lot of political campaigns, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that you can."
This might seem to favor wealth donors, who contrary to popular beliefs happen to favor each party probably somewhat equally. Even if it were rich vs. poor, there are way more poor than rich, and more money available from poor and middleclass sources than the ultra rich.
Originally posted by normbenign This might seem to favor wealth donors, who contrary to popular beliefs happen to favor each party probably somewhat equally. Even if it were rich vs. poor, there are way more poor than rich, and more money available from poor and middleclass sources than the ultra rich.
The poor have more money than the rich???
Actually the richest 10% own 73% of total wealth in the US. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
By way of the contrast, the bottom 40%: the lowest two quintiles hold just 0.3% of the wealth in the United States.http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
I'm interested in how the SC majority defined corruption. It seems to be narrowed to "bribery" but that is not an originalist position.
"The justices on the Court leading the charge to restrict the meaning of “corruption” to quid pro quo corruption alone are the conservatives. Those same conservatives—Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas most prominently, but Chief Justice Roberts as well—are also the justices who have told us again and again that the method they use to interpret the constitution is “originalism.” Read the Constitution, they have told us, not how we would read it, but how the Framers would have read it. That’s the only “principled,” as we’ve been lectured again and again, way to interpret the document. And on the basis of that method, the Court has struck down acts of Congress repeatedly, and likewise, upheld acts of Congress repeatedly. If the Framers would have done it, an originalist argues, then we should too.
But where is the originalism when it comes to the meaning of the word “corruption?” If the originalists on the Court believe the Framers would have permitted laws regulating the freedom of speech if those laws targeted “corruption,” why would an originalist use an understanding of the term from a 1976 per curium opinion (Buckley v. Valeo) rather than an understanding of the Framers—corruption as in “improper dependence”—made manifest by the Framers again and again?
Granted, one rich dude giving 2600/yr to every House and Senate candidate of his persuasion is not so bad, but how many of the 1% have to do this to mean that they run the country? So what if they are divided among themselves on some issues. That's improper dependence.
I haven't read the decision yet though at first glance I don't see why it would be unconstitutional to prohibit maximum overall expenditures to campaigns but constitutional to cap donations to individual campaigns; but I'll have to read the decision to understand that distinction.
Still, the real money and influence is in PACs and 527s. To limit the influence of the rich on the electoral process, you'd have to overturn Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United. This nuance seems like a drop in the bucket.
Originally posted by JS357 I'm interested in how the SC majority defined corruption. It seems to be narrowed to "bribery" but that is not an originalist position.
"The justices on the Court leading the charge to restrict the meaning of “corruption” to quid pro quo corruption alone are the conservatives. Those same conservatives—Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas most prominently, but ...[text shortened]... ountry? So what if they are divided among themselves on some issues. That's improper dependence.
Just an innocent question here about "originalism." The US constitution provides mechanisms for amendment over time and many amendments have been made. It seems to me by definition that an amended constitution has to deviate to some degree, perhaps significantly, from the original. Over time, the constitution surely becomes what is acceptable to the current generation of Americans and not what was acceptable to the original framers. After all, even the parts that remain unchanged have that status only because later generations accept them and choose not to amend them.
Just a question of course. Not an argument. I am no lawyer and no American.
Originally posted by sh76 I haven't read the decision yet though at first glance I don't see why it would be unconstitutional to prohibit maximum overall expenditures to campaigns but constitutional to cap donations to individual campaigns; but I'll have to read the decision to understand that distinction.
Still, the real money and influence is in PACs and 527s. To limit the influenc ...[text shortened]... e to overturn Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United. This nuance seems like a drop in the bucket.
It seems to be a predictable drop in the bucket. What shall we wise souls conclude is the constitutionally logical end point of these drops in the bucket? I say it's no -- zero -- limits on the financing of elections from all sources (foreign influences may have to form US corporations.) I wonder about the consequences -- which surely the Founders took into account.
Originally posted by JS357 "Washington (CNN) -- If you're rich and want to give money to a lot of political campaigns, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that you can."
Originally posted by techsouth Quote from Roberts: Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects....
Seems like if unlimited personal contributions are that bad we can amend the Constitution.
Originally posted by techsouth To clarify, the second part of my post was not part of the quote (it is not in italic). Sorry if that was confusing.
"We" refers to all of us in the US collectively.
Oh so "we" does not mean the major donors to campaigns. If they don't want a constitutional amendment infringing on their influence, there won't be one. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Originally posted by JS357 Oh so "we" does not mean the major donors to campaigns. If they don't want a constitutional amendment infringing on their influence, there won't be one. Why would anyone think otherwise?
As unlikely as an amendment is, that is the legitimate avenue of change.
If we don't like the Constitution, it is not proper to expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of what we like or want. If we go down that road, we have much bigger problems.
Originally posted by techsouth As unlikely as an amendment is, that is the legitimate avenue of change.
If we don't like the Constitution, it is not proper to expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of what we [b]like or want. If we go down that road, we have much bigger problems.[/b]
It's logically impossible for a person to want the SC to rule in a way he doesn't like or want.
It's more realistic to admit that we each want the SC to rule in favor of our interests. But yes, tell your opponents not to do this. Getting people to overlook their own interests is a key political tactic.
Originally posted by JS357 It's logically impossible for a person to want the SC to rule in a way he [b]doesn't like or want.
It's more realistic to admit that we each want the SC to rule in favor of our interests. But yes, tell your opponents not to do this. Getting people to overlook their own interests is a key political tactic.[/b]
02 Apr '14 20:18
SCOTUS opens the tap for campaign contributions.
Back to Top