Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap
By ADAM LIPTAK, NYT
APRIL 2, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued its abolition of limits on election spending, striking down a decades-old cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to candidates in a two-year election cycle. The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and very likely increase the already large role money plays in American politics.
The 5-to-4 decision, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority, echoed Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. Wednesday’s decision seemed to alter campaign finance law in subtle but important ways, notably by limiting the kinds of reasons the government can offer to justify laws said to restrict First Amendment rights in the context of campaign contributions.
The court’s 88-page decision reflected sharply different visions of the meaning of the First Amendment and the role of government in regulating elections, with the majority deeply skeptical of government efforts to control participation in politics, and the minority saying that such oversight was needed to ensure a functioning democracy.
(More here.)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued its abolition of limits on election spending, striking down a decades-old cap on the total amount any individual can contribute to candidates in a two-year election cycle. The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will change and very likely increase the already large role money plays in American politics.
The 5-to-4 decision, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority, echoed Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. Wednesday’s decision seemed to alter campaign finance law in subtle but important ways, notably by limiting the kinds of reasons the government can offer to justify laws said to restrict First Amendment rights in the context of campaign contributions.
The court’s 88-page decision reflected sharply different visions of the meaning of the First Amendment and the role of government in regulating elections, with the majority deeply skeptical of government efforts to control participation in politics, and the minority saying that such oversight was needed to ensure a functioning democracy.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
I am bothered by the amount of money in politics and, I am deeply concerned by those who seem to know exactly how much money could be spend by whom.
Post a Comment
<< Home