Little-Acorn
Gold Member
After the weirdly unconstitutional rulings in Kelo and the Obamacare decision, this is finally a breath of fresh air.
Liberals are in a paroxysm of rage over this one. Letting conservatives say whatever they want, as much as they want, does more harm to the leftist agenda than anything else possibly could. Leftist Stephen Breyer even stopped court proceedings to read a protest aloud from the bench.
When liberals get that steamed, you know you've done something right.
---------------------------------
Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions | Fox News
Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions
Published April 02, 2014
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled Wednesday that limits on the total amount of money individuals can give to candidates, political parties and political action committees are unconstitutional.
The ruling removes the cap on contributions, which was set at $123,200 for 2014, but does not change limits on individual contributions for president or Congress, currently set at $2,600 per election.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices.
Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects, Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades despite the profound offense such spectacles cause it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opinion.
The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise `the most fundamental First Amendment activities,"' Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the dissenting side, took the unusual step of reading a summary of his opinion from the bench and said the decision eviscerates our nations campaign finance laws.
[Yes, Mr. Breyer, that's exactly what it does. And your point was...?? -ed.]
Liberals are in a paroxysm of rage over this one. Letting conservatives say whatever they want, as much as they want, does more harm to the leftist agenda than anything else possibly could. Leftist Stephen Breyer even stopped court proceedings to read a protest aloud from the bench.
When liberals get that steamed, you know you've done something right.
---------------------------------
Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions | Fox News
Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions
Published April 02, 2014
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled Wednesday that limits on the total amount of money individuals can give to candidates, political parties and political action committees are unconstitutional.
The ruling removes the cap on contributions, which was set at $123,200 for 2014, but does not change limits on individual contributions for president or Congress, currently set at $2,600 per election.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices.
Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects, Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades despite the profound offense such spectacles cause it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opinion.
The overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise `the most fundamental First Amendment activities,"' Roberts said, quoting from the court's seminal 1976 campaign finance ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the dissenting side, took the unusual step of reading a summary of his opinion from the bench and said the decision eviscerates our nations campaign finance laws.
[Yes, Mr. Breyer, that's exactly what it does. And your point was...?? -ed.]
