USA's supreme court lifts campaign funding limits

[alhoon]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A3116V20140402


I find this development bad for USA's democracy and a step towards Oligarchy.

Campaign funding limits meant that politicians should cater to the voters not only for the vote but for funding the campaigns, which gave more power to the voters.
Now, a politician can cater to fewer and wealthier individuals and get most of their funds from them. Lobbies now hold another carrot/stick: "Promise to do that else we will stop sending you the 1 million $/week that we've been giving you for 6 weeks" etc.


While it's not that democracy will collapse overnight because of this, it's IMO a step towards the WRONG direction. Money had too much influence already.

[Vanoi]

This along with Citizen's United makes me doubt the current USA Supreme Court. I just don't see how money is speech. I don't get how blind these justices are to how money can influence and corrupt elections.

[YukonTrooper]

The judges aren't blind to the effects. They're just corrupt themselves.

[Euphoric]

Thanks for making us an aristocracy, SCOTUS. I hate to say it, but my revolutionary friends and sounding more and more sane these days.

[AqD]

It's already an oligarchy due to extreme level of wealth inequality.


It's blue, just like Russia and China:

[Theodotos I]

Didn't go far enough, but it was the right decision. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government power to limit campaign contributions. And yes. . .my libertarian friends are going berserk over this decision. Near as I can tell, their argument is somewhere on the lines of, "We need more government so that we can have less government."

[Love Mountain]

It's already an oligarchy due to extreme level of wealth inequality.


It's blue, just like Russia and China:

Agreed. It's been an oligarchy since the 80s.

[Col. Tartleton]

Oh no! Increased advertising budgets, how will democracy survive in the wake of such tragedy?

[Love Mountain]

Oh no! Increased advertising budgets, how will democracy survive in the wake of such tragedy?

It won't. Just what we need. Involving more money with politics.

[PointOfViewGun]

I believe Supreme Court have been applying a very strict definition of freedom with their decision on Citizens United and McCutcheon. By definition these decisions defy democracy which is normally fine. We defy democracy because of checks and balances or when it's for the common good every day. Democracy is not something that is 100% progressive. It can go either way and it did in history and still does. In my opinion, limiting or even eliminating private funding of political campaigns would be a move for the common good as money does determine who wins and who loses. There are two questions we need to ask: Do elections need to be fair? Does considerable difference in amount of money a campaign possesses automatically make an election unfair? Yes to both. Why? Because money is not a skill a candidate can use while in office tied to the job. That said, the system have been corrupt regardless of these decisions. It just makes it easier for corruption to remain in power. Keep in mind though, the same Supreme Court upheld prohibitions on foreign contribution to political campaigns.

I got one question though; if it's freedom to contribute whatever you wish to a political campaign why is it not freedom to have a rule (which limits political campaign contributions) that is created or upheld by elected individuals?

[alhoon]

Oh no! Increased advertising budgets, how will democracy survive in the wake of such tragedy?

Advertising budgets are the life-blood of a campaign. You get more money, you increase your chances to get elected. Not because your program is better, but because you use funds to be heard by more people.

[Euphoric]

Oh no! Increased advertising budgets, how will democracy survive in the wake of such tragedy?

Naiveté. Do you think a candidate with a million campaign dollars at his disposal could ever overcome a candidate with a billion campaign dollars at his disposal? Elections today are bought, not won.

[sleepyx732]

Campaign funds.. why I wonder what the conditions to retrieve some are. Money, a necessity to a relevant power position? People don't just give away for free you know.

Because if I 'donate' $100 million for your little run as president, I own you. I own you because you couldn't make it there without me. So why does everyone parade around like it matters?

[Theodotos I]

I got one question though; if it's freedom to contribute whatever you wish to a political campaign why is it not freedom to have a rule (which limits political campaign contributions) that is created or upheld by elected individuals?

Essentially, you're asking why isn't it freedom to limit freedom? Seriously?

[flota]

Doesn't most "democratic" countries had this rule applied long ago?

[PointOfViewGun]

Essentially, you're asking why isn't it freedom to limit freedom? Seriously?

More accurately I'm asking why is it not freedom to limit freedom one way but it is freedom to limit freedom an other way.

[The spartan]

Didn't go far enough, but it was the right decision. The Constitution doesn't give the federal government power to limit campaign contributions. And yes. . .my libertarian friends are going berserk over this decision. Near as I can tell, their argument is somewhere on the lines of, "We need more government so that we can have less government."

You mean like having the government outlaw slavery? How dare they limit our freedom to own slaves!

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

Are you me? I wasn't even aware this sort of thing was being passed and I pay a good amount of attention to current events. This is going to lead to companies having even more control of our country instead of the people.

[Love Mountain]

Are you me? I wasn't even aware this sort of thing was being passed and I pay a good amount of attention to current events. This is going to lead to companies having even more control of our country instead of the people.

I don't recall a time when this country was ever controlled by the "people".

[Simon Cashmere]

If you believe in capitalism, then capitalists can and should be able to donate however much they want to whomever they want. As long as there is a register and you cannot donate anonymously, everyone knows who has donated.

If you are against capitalism, well, that's a different argument altogether.