So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...

[Mac1958]

.

Money is money, speech is speech.

Big money is killing our political system.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's an easy solution. Go back to the 1A that says Congress can make no law abridging free speech. Since money is speech, all laws restricting campaign finance are unconstitutional.

Money is not speech, money is used to finance speech.

Wrong.

 

[Stephanie]

it didn't bother you that Obama collected MILLIONS from the unions and then this:

Fundraising

Obama (far right) participates in a bipartisan meeting with President Bush and Senator McCain, and House and Senate party leaders regarding the economy, September 25, 2008
See also: Fundraising for the 2008 United States presidential election
Barack Obama's fundraising broke previous records for presidential primary and general campaigns, and has changed expectations for future presidential elections. The campaign avoided using public campaign funds, raising all of its money privately from individual donors. By the general election the campaign committee raised more than $650 million for itself, and coordinated with both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and at least 18 state-level Democratic committees to create a joint-fundraising committee to raise and split tens of millions of dollars more.[41][42][43]
Post-election fundraising continued for the separate transition administration, called the Obama-Biden Transition Project, and also the separate inaugural ceremonies and celebrations committee.[41]

from:
Barack Obama presidential campaign 2008 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[occupied]

.

Money is money, speech is speech.

Big money is killing our political system.

.

Killing it for whom? The capitalists love it that political influence is now a legally obtained commodity.

 

[occupied]

So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...
...Are the ones with the most money?

Nope.

While Democrats tend to get most of their donated money from rich billionaires, big unions, bailed-out banks and companies, illegal big-money foreign donors trying to influence American elections etc., Republicans get more donations from small donors, families, small businesses etc. as well as big ones.

A lot more people like Republicans and their agenda, than like the big-govt, coercive and restrictive policies of Democrats. So they donate a lot more to Republicans.

Take the hint, Demmies. You were thrown out of office all across the nation for a reason. After getting six years of good, close looks at what you actually do - and how different it is from what you promise - the American people have had it up to here with your ilk. And they abandoned you, for good reason.

We won. Get over it.

And stay out of the way.

If that is the prevailing picture republicans have of our system then they are not fit to lead, the big boys in Washington know where their money comes from even if you don't.

 

[OnePercenter]

It does bother me. This is the reason why most 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance. They don't have the funding that is provided to the major parties with their PAC organizations. Why don't we have caps on the amount of money candidates are allowed to spend on their campaigns?

Don't 3rd party candidates actually distort the results of national elections? In 2000, Gore would have been elected. Some argue that 9/11 wouldn't have occurred, and there's more than enough evidence that the economic crash of 2008 wouldn't have occurred.

 

[ChrisL]

It does bother me. This is the reason why most 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance. They don't have the funding that is provided to the major parties with their PAC organizations. Why don't we have caps on the amount of money candidates are allowed to spend on their campaigns?

Don't 3rd party candidates actually distort the results of national elections? In 2000, Gore would have been elected. Some argue that 9/11 wouldn't have occurred, and there's more than enough evidence that the economic crash of 2008 wouldn't have occurred.

I vote for the candidate that most represents me and my views. If that's a third party candidate, then that's who I vote for. If that screws things up for YOUR candidate, then that's too bad I suppose.

 

[OnePercenter]

Campaigns are a lot like the stock market, a person invests in the one they think is the best and can win. No one is going to invest in a poor candidate without much to offer. A company with a good future will get a lot of investors and the stock will rise. A candidate with a good future will get a lot of donors and his or her political stock will rise.

We just don't spend money on the unqualified.

Unlike political elections, emotion has nothing to do in smart investing.

 

[OnePercenter]

I vote for the candidate that most represents me and my views. If that's a third party candidate, then that's who I vote for. If that screws things up for YOUR candidate, then that's too bad I suppose.

It 'screws things up' for the middle class. Your 'too bad' comment is VERY TELLING.

 

[Papageorgio]

So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...
...Are the ones with the most money?

Nope.

While Democrats tend to get most of their donated money from rich billionaires, big unions, bailed-out banks and companies, illegal big-money foreign donors trying to influence American elections etc., Republicans get more donations from small donors, families, small businesses etc. as well as big ones.

A lot more people like Republicans and their agenda, than like the big-govt, coercive and restrictive policies of Democrats. So they donate a lot more to Republicans.

Take the hint, Demmies. You were thrown out of office all across the nation for a reason. After getting six years of good, close looks at what you actually do - and how different it is from what you promise - the American people have had it up to here with your ilk. And they abandoned you, for good reason.

We won. Get over it.

And stay out of the way.

If that is the prevailing picture republicans have of our system then they are not fit to lead, the big boys in Washington know where their money comes from even if you don't.

So why aren't the Democrats getting the money anymore? If what you are claiming is correct, then in 2006, 2008, 2012 the Democrats got more money, why did that change?

 

[WelfareQueen]

...Are the ones with the most money?

91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins

The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.


* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.​

And in these latest midterms?


Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed

The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.

Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.

Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.​

CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.​

Sweetie....incumbents always have the most money....that's all this means.


Now settle down dear.

 

[OnePercenter]

Nope.

While Democrats tend to get most of their donated money from rich billionaires, big unions, bailed-out banks and companies, illegal big-money foreign donors trying to influence American elections etc., Republicans get more donations from small donors, families, small businesses etc. as well as big ones.

A lot more people like Republicans and their agenda, than like the big-govt, coercive and restrictive policies of Democrats. So they donate a lot more to Republicans.

Take the hint, Demmies. You were thrown out of office all across the nation for a reason. After getting six years of good, close looks at what you actually do - and how different it is from what you promise - the American people have had it up to here with your ilk. And they abandoned you, for good reason.

We won. Get over it.

And stay out of the way.

The middle class didn't win. The rich (me) and business (also me) won.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

2014 Campaign Contribution Limits
On Nov. 6, 2002, the day after the 2002 midterm elections, a new set of federal campaign finance laws went into effect. Known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the law increased the contribution limits for individuals giving to federal candidates and political parties.

Every two years, the Federal Election Commission updates certain contribution limits -- such as the the amount individuals may give to candidates and party committees -- that are indexed to inflation.

Up until April 2, 2014, there were also aggregate limits on how much individuals could give to candidates, parties and PACs. On that date, the Supreme Court said the limit was unconstitutional in a case called McCutcheon v. FEC. The limit for the 2014 cycle was to be $123,200. Now, however, donors can give to as many candidates and committees as they want -- though they still need to abide by the per-candidate, per-PAC and per-party committee limits -- without bumping into an overall cap.


Contribution Limits for 2013-2014

	To each candidate or candidate committee per election	To national party committee per calendar year	To state, district & local party committee per calendar year	To any other political committee per calendar year1	Special Limits
Individual may give	$2,600*	$32,400*	$10,000 (combined limit)	$5,000	No limit
National Party Committee may give	$5,000	No limit	No limit	$5,000	$45,400* to Senate Candidates per campaign3
State, District & Local Party Committee may give	$5,000 (combined limit)	No limit	No limit	$5,000 (combined limit)	No limit
PAC (multicandidate)4 may give	$5,000	$15,000	$5,000 (combined limit)	$5,000	No limit
PAC (not multicandidate) may give	$2,600*	$32,400*	$5,000 (combined limit)	$5,000	No limit
Authorized Campaign Committee may give	$2,0005	No limit	No limit	$5,000	No limit

[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

* These contribution limits are increased for inflation in odd-numbered years.

(1) A contribution earmarked for a candidate through a political committee counts against the original contributor’s limit for that candidate. In certain circumstances, the contribution may also count against the contributor’s limit to the PAC. 11 CFR 110.6. See also 11 CFR 110.1(h).

(2) No more than $46,200 of this amount may be contributed to state and local party committees and PACs.

(3) This limit is shared by the national committee and the national Senate campaign committee.

(4) A multicandidate committee is a political committee with more than 50 contributors which has been registered for at least 6 months and, with the exception of state party committees, has made contributions to 5 or more candidates for federal office. 11 CFR 100.5(e)(3).

(5) A federal candidate's authorized committee(s) may contribute no more than $2,000 per election to another federal candidate's authorized committee(s). 11 CFR 102.12(c)(2).

There are already contribution limits .......................

 

[occupied]

So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...
...Are the ones with the most money?

Nope.

While Democrats tend to get most of their donated money from rich billionaires, big unions, bailed-out banks and companies, illegal big-money foreign donors trying to influence American elections etc., Republicans get more donations from small donors, families, small businesses etc. as well as big ones.

A lot more people like Republicans and their agenda, than like the big-govt, coercive and restrictive policies of Democrats. So they donate a lot more to Republicans.

Take the hint, Demmies. You were thrown out of office all across the nation for a reason. After getting six years of good, close looks at what you actually do - and how different it is from what you promise - the American people have had it up to here with your ilk. And they abandoned you, for good reason.

We won. Get over it.

And stay out of the way.

If that is the prevailing picture republicans have of our system then they are not fit to lead, the big boys in Washington know where their money comes from even if you don't.

So why aren't the Democrats getting the money anymore? If what you are claiming is correct, then in 2006, 2008, 2012 the Democrats got more money, why did that change?

Neither party has the moral high ground on this issue but the party that made destroying election law their mission and now enjoys the support of most of the "dark money" will have a day of reckoning for taking the brakes off the big money machine.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You do see the part of my last post that states what the SCOTUS ruling is ..........................
How do porch monkey's articulate that ??
"It's the law of the land ......................"

 

[Papageorgio]

So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...
...Are the ones with the most money?

Nope.

While Democrats tend to get most of their donated money from rich billionaires, big unions, bailed-out banks and companies, illegal big-money foreign donors trying to influence American elections etc., Republicans get more donations from small donors, families, small businesses etc. as well as big ones.

A lot more people like Republicans and their agenda, than like the big-govt, coercive and restrictive policies of Democrats. So they donate a lot more to Republicans.

Take the hint, Demmies. You were thrown out of office all across the nation for a reason. After getting six years of good, close looks at what you actually do - and how different it is from what you promise - the American people have had it up to here with your ilk. And they abandoned you, for good reason.

We won. Get over it.

And stay out of the way.

If that is the prevailing picture republicans have of our system then they are not fit to lead, the big boys in Washington know where their money comes from even if you don't.

So why aren't the Democrats getting the money anymore? If what you are claiming is correct, then in 2006, 2008, 2012 the Democrats got more money, why did that change?

Neither party has the moral high ground on this issue but the party that made destroying election law their mission and now enjoys the support of most of the "dark money" will have a day of reckoning for taking the brakes off the big money machine.

Love how you threw in the "but," you were on target until then.

 

[occupied]

So It Doesn't Bother Anyone That Over 90% of the Winning Candiates...
...Are the ones with the most money?

Nope.

While Democrats tend to get most of their donated money from rich billionaires, big unions, bailed-out banks and companies, illegal big-money foreign donors trying to influence American elections etc., Republicans get more donations from small donors, families, small businesses etc. as well as big ones.

A lot more people like Republicans and their agenda, than like the big-govt, coercive and restrictive policies of Democrats. So they donate a lot more to Republicans.

Take the hint, Demmies. You were thrown out of office all across the nation for a reason. After getting six years of good, close looks at what you actually do - and how different it is from what you promise - the American people have had it up to here with your ilk. And they abandoned you, for good reason.

We won. Get over it.

And stay out of the way.

If that is the prevailing picture republicans have of our system then they are not fit to lead, the big boys in Washington know where their money comes from even if you don't.

So why aren't the Democrats getting the money anymore? If what you are claiming is correct, then in 2006, 2008, 2012 the Democrats got more money, why did that change?

Neither party has the moral high ground on this issue but the party that made destroying election law their mission and now enjoys the support of most of the "dark money" will have a day of reckoning for taking the brakes off the big money machine.

Love how you threw in the "but," you were on target until then.

Explain why I am wrong or STFU.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The Left has not utilized vast sums of money in politics, either?

Yes they do. Want to stop them? I want to stop the "dark money", the huge donations, the Super Pacs, etc. from everywhere and to anyone. I support a limit on donations. Donations, IMO, should be from individuals only, not secret and be a limited amount. You?

You're going to destroy the Democrats, utterly destroy them.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Neither party has the moral high ground on this issue but the party that made destroying election law their mission and now enjoys the support of most of the "dark money" will have a day of reckoning for taking the brakes off the big money machine.

They just had their day of reckoning. On Tuesday. And they lost, huge.

Get over it.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 8, 2013 Decided April 2, 2014
Full case name	Shaun McCutcheon, et al., Appellants v. Federal Election Commission
Docket nos.	12-536
Citations	572 U.S. ___ (more)
Argument	Oral argument
Holding
Aggregate contribution limits to campaign finance are unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan [TBODY] [/TBODY]
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), was a landmark campaign finance case before the United States Supreme Court challenging Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which imposed a biennial aggregate limit on individual contributions to national party and federal candidate committees.[1]

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 8, 2013,[2] being brought on appeal after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge. It was decided on April 2, 2014, by a 5–4 vote,[3] reversing the decision below and remanding. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito invalidated aggregate contribution limits as violating the First Amendment. Justice Thomas provided the necessary fifth vote, but concurred separately in the judgment while arguing that all contribution limits are unconstitutional.


Background
The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was first passed in 1971.[4] Amendments to FECA in 1974, after the Watergate Scandal, imposed aggregate limits on the direct contributions that individuals can make to national political parties and federal candidates in a calendar year.[5] The constitutionality of the FECA amendments was challenged in 1976, which resulted in the court upholding the aggregate limits in Buckley v. Valeo.[6] In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was passed. The BCRA revised the aggregate limits, adjusted them to future (but not past) inflation, and changed the individual limitations from annual to biennial;[7] The aggregate contribution ceiling on individuals during the 2011-2012 election cycle stood at $46,200 for federal candidates and $70,800 for national parties, or a $117,000 aggregate limit.[8]

Plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon is a businessman and electrical engineer from suburban Birmingham, Alabama, who is a campaign contributor and self described activist of the Republican Party.[9][10] The founder and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development Corporation, McCutcheon began donating to Republican candidates in the late 1990s, and would ultimately join the Jefferson County Republican Party Executive Committee.[11] At a 2011 Young Conservatives Coalition event, McCutcheon met attorney and campaign finance expert Dan Backer, who would play a major role in encouraging McCutcheon to file suit against the FEC.[11] As of September 2012, McCutcheon had given $33,088 to sixteen federal candidates and over $25,000 in non-candidate contributions during the 2011-2012 cycle.[5] McCutcheon intended on donating to an additional twelve federal candidates, bringing his contribution total over the federal aggregate limit on federal candidates.[12] McCutcheon filed suit against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), where he was joined in his lawsuit by the Republican National Committee.[13]

U.S. District Court
On June 22, 2012 the plaintiffs of the case filed their Verified Complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to revisit the precedent set in the Buckley case and calling the limits on contributions to federally elected candidates a "burden on speech and association."[14] The case was heard by a three-judge court, with judges James E. Boasberg, Janice Rogers Brown and Robert L. Wilkins designated to hear the case.[15]

On September 28, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the FEC's motion to dismiss; upholding the aggregate limits.[16] The court held that:

"The government may justify the aggregate limits as a means of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, or as a means of preventing circumvention of contribution limits imposed to further its anticorruption interest."[17]

On October 9, 2012 the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court; the Court granted certiorari on February 19, 2013.[16][18]

Supreme Court
The court heard oral arguments on October 8, 2013.[19] Erin E. Murphy, counsel at Bancroft PLLC, argued for the appellants.[20] Attorney Michael T. Morley was counsel of record for Appellant McCutcheon and was primarily responsible for preparing his principal brief. United States Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued for the appellees, the Federal Election Commission and the Obama administration.[20]

On April 2, 2014 the court ruled, 5–4, for the appellants. While the ruling overturned limits on aggregate federal campaign contributions, it did not affect limits on how much individuals can give to an individual politician's campaign, which remain at $2,600 per election.[21] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the legal opinion that "The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”[22]

Concurrence and dissent

This section relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources. (April 2014)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment but wished to go further and abolish all campaign contribution limits. He wrote: "limiting the amount of money a person may give to a candidate does impose a direct restraint on his political communication." He rejected the rationale of Buckley v. Valeo that "[a] contribution serves as a general expression of support for the candidate and his views, but does not communicate the underlying basis for the support", since "this Court has never required a speaker to explain the reasons for his position in order to obtain full First Amendment protection".

Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, arguing that the decision "creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign. Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010), today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve."[23]

Subsequent commentary
In response to the case, a coalition of environmental, voting rights, labor, and government reform groups rallied outside of the Supreme Court.[24] Environmentalists from Greenpeace and the Sierra Club protested what Phil Radford of Greenpeace called a "legalized system of corruption through money in politics" that had resulted in few major environmental laws passing in the U.S. since 1980.[25]

Writing for The Nation, Ari Berman wrote that the ruling shows that "The Court’s conservative majority believes that the First Amendment gives wealthy donors and powerful corporations the carte blanche right to buy an election but that the Fifteenth Amendment does not give Americans the right to vote free of racial discrimination."[26] Countering Berman's quote Robert J. Samuelson pointed out that the rich is not one single block, but there are many different factions among them. He added that money does not "guarantee victory. After a certain point, more money hits the law of diminishing returns. It can be and is misspent."[27] Samuelson also said that there are poor politicians who can't communicate and so they need money "to hire campaign staff, build a website, buy political spots and the like" in order to "affect how people behave."[27]

The Center for Competitive Politics, a leading group advocating for deregulation of campaign finance, heralded the decision, releasing a statement saying, "the Court’s conclusion was common sense: the law limited an individual to contributing the legal maximum to just 18 candidates. If the first 18 aren’t “corrupted” by the contribution, why is candidate 19? What’s remarkable is that four justices of the Supreme Court continue to believe that such overt limitations on political speech are constitutional. Moreover, to reach that conclusion the dissenters relied on a series of preposterous hypotheticals bearing no resemblance to reality."[28]

In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin wrote that "the language of Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion suggests that the Court remains committed to the project announced most prominently in the Citizens United case, four years ago: the deregulation of American political campaigns."[29]

Thirty hours after the McCutcheon case came down, Professors Ronald Collins and David Skover published an 80,000-word narrative account of the history of the case, which included an analysis of the Court's opinion. The e-book is titled When Money Speaks: The McCutcheon Decision, Campaign Finance Laws & the First Amendment (Top Five Books, 2014).

Following the decision, SCOTUSblog published a symposium on the case with a foreword by Ronald Collins & David Skover and commentaries by Floyd Abrams, Jan Baran, Rick Hasen, Burt Neuborne, Ilya Shapiro, Paul M. Smith, and Fred Wertheimer (April 3–4, 2014).