Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Campaign Contribution Limits

    In 5-4 Ruling, Majority Says Such Caps Violate the First Amendment

    By JESS BRAVIN
    Updated April 2, 2014 10:39 a.m. ET


    Plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, center, leaves the Supreme Court in October 2013 after the court heard oral arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Committee. Getty Images


    WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court, in a closely watched campaign-finance case, struck down aggregate limits on political contributions, saying such caps violate the First Amendment.

    The court, in a 5-4 ruling, said Congress's interest in fighting corruption doesn't justify the burden on political speech posed by aggregate limits.


    The case was brought by Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, who wanted to give more than a total of $123,200, the aggregate cap, to Republican candidates and political committees. The Republican National Committee backed him, while Democratic groups and activists lined up on the other side, arguing that the campaign regulation, which traces to the post-Watergate reforms of the 1970s, was valid.


    Related Links








    Justice Stephen Breyer read his dissent from the bench, signifying significant disagreement from the court's liberal wing. He said that the aggregate cap fights corruption by making harder to circumvent the limits on contributions to individual candidates.
    Justi
    ce Clarence Thomas agreed with the majority's result, but would have gone further still, striking down all limits on political contributions.


    The court left intact limits on contributions to individual candidates and political committees. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that those are justified in fighting quid-pro-quo corruption.


    Write to
    Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...434759494.html
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Big donors fear shakedown

    Politico
    18 minutes ago
    Written by
    Anna Palmer
    The biggest Washington donors used to have a great excuse to keep their wallets closed when fundraisers came knocking: Sorry, I'm maxed out...
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •