US Supreme Court upholds ability of billionaires to buy elections

[bush_cheney2004]

Because the court has drawn a distinction and balance between individual and corporate free speech rights and the government's interest in merely reporting the free exercise thereof in the case of campaign contributions. Limiting such contributions is different from requiring disclosure.

[Moonlight Graham]

In a healthy democracy, money shouldn't be a significant determinant in whether someone can run for or win elections. Candidates taking outside contributions is a massive conflict of interest, and it causes corruption. The right to a healthy democracy trumps free speech rights.

[bush_cheney2004]

In a healthy democracy, money shouldn't be a significant determinant in whether someone can run for or win elections. Candidates taking outside contributions is a massive conflict of interest, and it causes corruption. The right to a healthy democracy trumps free speech rights.

Not in the United States....it's not like in Canada where anything can be "reasonably" compromised for "peace, order, and good government". There is no constitutional right to a "healthy democracy".

[kimmy]

Not in the United States....it's not like in Canada where anything can be "reasonably" compromised for "peace, order, and good government". There is no constitutional right to a "healthy democracy".

So again, why any restrictions at all? Why any rules at all? If giving money to politicians is protected free speech, why can't people and companies just give as much of their money as they want to whoever they want without going through hoops like disclosures or super-PACs?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

So again, why any restrictions at all? Why any rules at all? If giving money to politicians is protected free speech, why can't people and companies just give as much of their money as they want to whoever they want without going through hoops like disclosures or super-PACs?

Because the Congress passed such laws after Watergate (i.e.FECA 1972), regardless of constitutionality. The Supreme Court started to strike these laws down as case law developed for people or groups with standing. PACs served as a workaround to funnel money to parties in the interim period.

Again, there is nothing in the constitution per se that would preclude disclosure laws IMHO.

Edited April 7, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

There are reasons these laws came to exist in the first place? And reasons why the Supreme Court chose not to do away with the rules entirely?

Justice Roberts wrote in his decision about his belief that disclosure provides a "safeguard". What are they safeguarding against?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

There are reasons these laws came to exist in the first place? And reasons why the Supreme Court chose not to do away with the rules entirely?

Justice Roberts wrote in his decision about his belief that disclosure provides a "safeguard". What are they safeguarding against?

The SC is walking a fine line between the Constitution and Congressional legislation (often partisan) to keep big, nondisclosed money out of candidate coffers. Clearly the court has deferred to protecting free speech rights while limiting direct campaign cash injections by large donors.

Edited April 7, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

Clearly, the court deferred to free spending. Full stop. If you want free speech, let's see the color of your money. Democracy is being bought into oblivion.

[bush_cheney2004]

Clearly, the court deferred to free spending. Full stop. If you want free speech, let's see the color of your money. Democracy is being bought into oblivion.

So what ? Using your logic, there would be no campaign contributions at all....none. Democracy ain't free.

[On Guard for Thee]

Using your logic, democracy goes to the highest bidder.

[bush_cheney2004]

Using your logic, democracy goes to the highest bidder.

But it doesn't....deep pockets do not guarantee election success. Americans have the money and desire to back their candidates and self interest(s), but it doesn't mean they will always win.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ah no, a few Americans have the money, and they typically win. Except for times when the money folks get really stupid with the likes of Palin and the Tea Party and then even the money doesn't work.

[eyeball]

The wealthiest also cover their bets by bribing all the candidates. The money, like the government, still gets in no matter who wins.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ah no, a few Americans have the money, and they typically win. Except for times when the money folks get really stupid with the likes of Palin and the Tea Party and then even the money doesn't work.

Nonsense, as millions of Americans give money to political candidates and parties. Our federal tax returns even solicit money for the campaign fund, and many states give deductions or credits for campaign donations.

[On Guard for Thee]

Oh yeah, I forgot about the 99%. Good luck to them.

[cybercoma]

Perhaps you forgot about 1812. Also we actually elect our leaders here, sans electoral college.

No we don't. We elect representatives, sans electoral college, just like in the US. They actually elect their head of government, unlike us.

[cybercoma]

There is no constitutional right to a "healthy democracy".

Come to America! Where there's no right to democracy. You should print up some flyers to attract the best and brightest immigrants with that one.

[bush_cheney2004]

Come to America! Where there's no right to democracy. You should print up some flyers to attract the best and brightest immigrants with that one.

There is no right to democracy in Canada either...but we know which nation has the most immigrants....no flyers required.

[On Guard for Thee]

No we don't. We elect representatives, sans electoral college, just like in the US. They actually elect their head of government, unlike us.

That's correct but WE elect those reps, we have no electoral college. Last I checked less than half the EC's in the states are required to vote the popular vote.

[cybercoma]

There is no right to democracy in Canada either...but we know which nation has the most immigrants....no flyers required.

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy.

But let me ask you this, what the hell does Canada have to do with a US Supreme Court decision about electoral financing in the United States?

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy.

Yes...we know. Three immigrants seeking "democracy" found this out while refusing to pledge allegiance to the sovereign.

But let me ask you this, what the hell does Canada have to do with a US Supreme Court decision about electoral financing in the United States?

Oh, that's easy...some people have claimed that a "healthy democracy" depends on keeping big money out of politics, so comparisons to other democracies might happen...even those with a monarch..

[cybercoma]

So you're arguing that Canada, as a Constitutional Monarchy, is similar to the United States as a plutocracy?

[cybercoma]

Why am I even responding to you?

[bush_cheney2004]

So you're arguing that Canada, as a Constitutional Monarchy, is similar to the United States as a plutocracy?

No, I am arguing that the foundation and premise that some people are using to assail the court's ruling are false, or at least somewhat mistaken. The constitutional RIGHT to "healthy democracy"....seriously ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why am I even responding to you?

Because I can legally give money to U.S. candidates and always give good post ?