SCOTUS Strikes Down Limits on Overall Federal Campaign Contributions

[PRB]

Using money to buy votes is evil. Using other people's money to buy votes is double evil.

not according to liberal logic, for liberals, everything they do is good as long as they agree with the agenda or if government does it instead of private corporations.

 

[otherone]

Next stop : allow foreigners to donate.

Of course. The first amendment protects free speech of EVERYONE, not just Americans. Although only citizens can vote, there is no Constitutional basis that prevents foreigners from buying elections.

 

[Natural Citizen]

When is the last time anyone saw a corporation come home from war in a body bag? Never? That's what I thought.

 

[PRB]

When is the last time anyone saw a corporation come home from war in a body bag? Never? That's what I thought.

that doesn't mean you haven't seen corporation OWNERS, SHAREHOLDERS, STAKEHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES come home in a body bag.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections

 

[Natural Citizen]

that doesn't mean you haven't seen corporation OWNERS, SHAREHOLDERS, STAKEHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES come home in a body bag.

I'll ask again. When is the last time anyone saw a corporation come home from war in a body bag?

 

[PRB]

I'll ask again. When is the last time anyone saw a corporation come home from war in a body bag?

about as many times as I see cars come home from war in a body bag.

 

[Brett85]

I'm surprised to see all of the comments in favor of this ruling. A lot of the comments I've seen from libertarians here and on the DP in the past made it sound like a large number of libertarians are in favor of campaign finance laws which place limits on contributions.

 

[PRB]

I'm surprised to see all of the comments in favor of this ruling.

You're surprised to see that on a forum of anti-government people, people support a less government ruling?

A lot of the comments I've seen from libertarians here and on the DP in the past made it sound like a large number of libertarians are in favor of campaign finance laws which place limits on contributions.

those are libertarians who want government because somebody isn't playing fair, the same people who want border enforcement, DUI enforcement and labeling GMOs.

 

[otherone]

Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections

The Constitution protects the Mexican's Right to free speech. He can buy our politicians with the same alacrity as our native collectives, which, apparently, have Rights just like people.

 

[eduardo89]

Of course. The first amendment protects free speech of EVERYONE, not just Americans. Although only citizens can vote, there is no Constitutional basis that prevents foreigners from buying elections.

There's also no constitutional basis to say only US citizens have the right to vote. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say only US citizens may vote in US elections.

 

[otherone]

There's also no constitutional basis to say only US citizens have the right to vote. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say only US citizens may vote in US elections.

Cool. Everyone votes!
There's free speech for ya'.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Don't these sorts of rulings make it easier to buy influence? If these laws were taken to the extreme and all limits removed, it could also set up a bidding war which would send the price of a Federal election spiraling out of control. (Repubs: "The Dems spent $1 billion this year, gotta double that next year." Dems: "The Repubs spent $2 billion this time, gotta double that next time."...and so on)

We are already sort of seeing this.

 

[PRB]

Don't these sorts of rulings make it easier to buy influence?

How is that a bad thing? if influence can't be bought, how do you get it? by force?

If these laws were taken to the extreme and all limits removed, it could also set up a bidding war which would send the price of a Federal election spiraling out of control.

It's called freedom, asshole! You want the federal government to control our elections huh?

(Repubs: "The Dems spent $1 billion this year, gotta double that next year." Dems: "The Repubs spent $2 billion this time, gotta double that next time."...and so on)

We are already sort of seeing this.

Yeah, and I don't see what's your problem unless you hate freedom.

 

[PRB]

There's also no constitutional basis to say only US citizens have the right to vote. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say only US citizens may vote in US elections.

so what does being a citizen mean if it doesn't mean enjoyment of specific privileges such as right to vote?

 

[otherone]

so what does being a citizen mean if it doesn't mean enjoyment of specific privileges such as right to vote?

Voting isn't a "right", just as healthcare and ham on Easter isn't a "right". Free speech is a constitutionally protected Right, and as actual Rights aren't restricted to citizens (unlike voting), I see no argument against allowing foreigners to spend their money as they wish. So if the scotus believe money=speech, then let the campaign wars of Putin versus Xi Jinping commence! Think of all that dough being pumped into Rupert Murdoch's coffers!

 

[otherone]

so what does being a citizen mean if it doesn't mean enjoyment of specific privileges such as right to vote?

Elections are meaningless, anyway. It would be more expedient to vote for an EIN instead of a name.

 

[angelatc]

Don't these sorts of rulings make it easier to buy influence? If these laws were taken to the extreme and all limits removed, it could also set up a bidding war which would send the price of a Federal election spiraling out of control. (Repubs: "The Dems spent $1 billion this year, gotta double that next year." Dems: "The Repubs spent $2 billion this time, gotta double that next time."...and so on)

We are already sort of seeing this.

As long as they're using our money to buy votes with subsidies and welfare, I see no logical reason to keep us from buying their votes. At least we're using our own money.

 

[angelatc]

You're surprised to see that on a forum of anti-government people, people support a less government ruling?



those are libertarians who want government because somebody isn't playing fair, the same people who want border enforcement, DUI enforcement and labeling GMOs.

Agreed. I'm not a Libertarian, and I do support border enforcement. But I think this is a good thing. People who do not like political parties should be very happy with this ruling, because it allows big donors to contribute directly to the candidates of their choice, bypassing the party entirely.

 

[PRB]

Voting isn't a "right", just as healthcare and ham on Easter isn't a "right".

I said privilege before I said right, didn't I?

Free speech is a constitutionally protected Right, and as actual Rights aren't restricted to citizens (unlike voting), I see no argument against allowing foreigners to spend their money as they wish. So if the scotus believe money=speech, then let the campaign wars of Putin versus Xi Jinping commence! Think of all that dough being pumped into Rupert Murdoch's coffers!

No, SCOTUS does NOT say money = speech, this is the same kind of liberal strawman as people who say corporations are people.