Goodbye PACs, Hello JFCs

[g5000]

The United States Supreme Court just handed down a decision today that will have a bigger impact on campaign financing than the Citizens United decision has.

That decision is McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

Current law limits the aggregate amount an individual can donate to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees in an election cycle. That limit has just been removed by the McCutcheon decision.

The limit that a person can donate to an individual candidate is still in place, but now a person can donate to as many candidates as they wish. Before this decision, they had to stop after they had donated a total of $123,000. Only 600 people hit that limit in 2012.

With McCutcheon, though, we can now return to the pre-Watergate days where a bazillionaire can write a single check to a Joint Fundraising Committee (JFC) for whatever amount he wants, and that JFC can then funnel that money to candidates, political parties, and PACs as they see fit.

Remember the Obama Victory Fund? That was a JFC. Because of the aggregate limits in the law, an individual donor could only contribute $75,800 to that fund.

McCutcheon now removes that limit.


Let the good times roll!

 

[Zander]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

 

[Dot Com]

gov't of the corporations, by the corporations, & for the corporations

 

[g5000]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Yes. Do you know where the "money is speech" meme comes from?

Another Supreme Court decision. Buckley v. Valeo. 1976. That was the decision which struck down some provisions of campaign finance laws, but it also upheld the limits one can donate to individuals and the reporting requirements.

 

[auditor0007]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Yes it is. Unfortunately, decisions like this that lead to the very few controlling the entire debate eventually backfires. We continue to head down a path that will lead to the end of our democracy. Greed has no limits.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Watch the Dems use the JFCs to try to sweep government in 2016 in order for the pres to appoint liberal SCOTUS members. But wait . . . why will they actually do it if they are winning with JFCs?

 

[KNB]

Money is speech, so those with the most money have the loudest voices.

95% of financial gains during the economic recovery went to the richest 1%.

And the mouth-breathing gun owners in this country support the drug war and the police state, so the chance of revolution is nil.

 

[g5000]

Money is speech, so those with the most money have the loudest voices.

The right of free association means you can send your meager sums to an organization which will amplify your voice a million times louder than you could do on your own.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

 

[bendog]

The United States Supreme Court just handed down a decision today that will have a bigger impact on campaign financing than the Citizens United decision has.

That decision is McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf

Current law limits the aggregate amount an individual can donate to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees in an election cycle. That limit has just been removed by the McCutcheon decision.

The limit that a person can donate to an individual candidate is still in place, but now a person can donate to as many candidates as they wish. Before this decision, they had to stop after they had donated a total of $123,000. Only 600 people hit that limit in 2012.

With McCutcheon, though, we can now return to the pre-Watergate days where a bazillionaire can write a single check to a Joint Fundraising Committee (JFC) for whatever amount he wants, and that JFC can then funnel that money to candidates, political parties, and PACs as they see fit.

Remember the Obama Victory Fund? That was a JFC. Because of the aggregate limits in the law, an individual donor could only contribute $75,800 to that fund.

McCutcheon now removes that limit.


Let the good times roll!

Exactly, though Bebe Rebozo would not have needed a briefcase for cash.

As Edwin Edwards might say "bon temps roulez"

 

[boedicca]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Indeed.

An I'll note that unions recycling taxpayer money into Democrat campaign coffers generate far more $$$ than do a few rich conservatives....and it's OUR MONEY, not some rich guy's.

 

[boedicca]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Yes it is. Unfortunately, decisions like this that lead to the very few controlling the entire debate eventually backfires. We continue to head down a path that will lead to the end of our democracy. Greed has no limits.

You poor blithering idiot.

The real beneficiaries of limiting campaign donations are Incumbents and the Status Quo. Campaign finance restrictions are to get rid of the outsider competition.

Let's also consider how elected officials, such as Obama, use vast amounts of government resources for their campaigns. Obama uses the pretext of a some government activity to justify using government resources for his fund raising trips.

If anything should be limited, that type of abuse is it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Money is speech, so those with the most money have the loudest voices.

The right of free association means you can send your meager sums to an organization which will amplify your voice a million times louder than you could do on your own.

Lets do the math. 10% owns how much of the wealth?

HowStuffWorks "Is it true that 1 percent of Americans control a third of the wealth?"

Even more incredible is that the richest 10 percent of Americans control 75 percent of the wealth, leaving only 25 percent to the other 90 percent of Americans.

So if we do the math...If every single person NOT in the top 10% donated to the JFC for Stopping Puppy Kicking how many of the top 10% have to donate to defeat it. 10....20?

So now we have to play this game where we pretend that all money is the same (because all speech is the "same") and the amount of money doesnt matter because THEORETICALLY we could do the same...except we cant...unless we ignore amounts of money

 

[g5000]

As Edwin Edwards might say "bon temps roulez"

Laissez les bons temps roulez.

Edwin Edwards. Wow. There's a name you don't hear any more.

“It was illegal for them to give, but not for me to receive.”

 

[hjmick]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

They are corrupt and they don't represent us now... And haven't for years...

 

[B. Kidd]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

They are corrupt and they don't represent us now... And haven't for years...

Why don't they see this?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Donating "Money" is a form of free speech.

Deal with it.

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

They are corrupt and they don't represent us now... And haven't for years...

Great plan! Theres a hole why not keep digging

 

[bendog]

Fast forward 1 year and watch how many "waaaa politicians are corrupt and dont represent us" posts you drum up.

They are corrupt and they don't represent us now... And haven't for years...

Why don't they see this?

People know, but it used to be we knew who the bastards were who were buying them.

On the bright side, hookers and cigar makers will be safe, cause now pols can have cold hard cash .... and we'll never be the wiser.

 

[g5000]

Let's see...

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Feingold.

Disclose Act.

Several Supreme Court decisions.

All of the campaign finance "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents. The House remains at a nearly 98 percent re-election rate while the Senate hovers around 80 percent.

Meanwhile, during every Presidential election a new record of campaign fundraising is set.


Unchanged in at least half a century.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let's see...

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Feingold.

Disclose Act.

Several Supreme Court decisions.

All of the campaign finance "reforms" of the past half century have had ZERO impact on the re-election rate of incumbents. The House remains at a nearly 98 percent re-election rate while the Senate hovers around 80 percent.

Meanwhile, during every Presidential election a new record of campaign fundraising is set.


Unchanged in at least half a century.

Thats because the goal of those reforms never included effecting the re-election rate of incumbents.