Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Political Contributions

Posted by dbhalling 11 years, 10 months ago to Government
18 comments | Share | Flag

Does the 1st Amendment give you the right to spend as much on political speech as you want?

All Comments

  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 10 months ago
    All this really is is a counter to the unlimited campaigning being done by labor unions who overwhelmingly shill for Democrats. Note that it doesn't eliminate the individual contribution limit, it just allows you to spend that limit on as many candidates for Federal Government as you want.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mckenziecalhoun 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just find if funny.
    I think the Commerce Clause needs to be scrapped and rewritten completely to cover ONLY those things the Federal government was meant to cover.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not sure what you are driving at. Are you suggesting that Congress cite the Commerce Clause as trumping the 1st Amendment?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonC 11 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Now all we need is a candidate that can articulate a few simple ideas. "Because we are all Americans and we all want to better ourselves, I will work to remove the roadblocks of big government and clear the path for our success. Because you want to better yourself, will you vote for me?"

    Not pandering, not promising equal outcomes. Removing the roadblocks that stand between where we are and where we want to be. What a concept!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 11 years, 10 months ago
    My feeling is the same, I applaud the win for free speech. Unfortunately, we have a lot of sheep in the US.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by irrelevantcommentforpoint 11 years, 10 months ago
    When will those dolts strike down the censorship of "free speech zones"?
    Obviously, the answer is NEVER, because they serve the nefarious purposes of the elite and looters, as does this judgement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years, 10 months ago
    I am glad to see this rare rescinding of an infringement on liberty. One small win for us.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 10 months ago
    The only alternative is for government to mandate that all radio/TV/print/weblog/etc. ad infinitum be provided for free for all "political speech." That in turn would require a definition of "political speech," which I'm sure all will agree is an absurdity.

    Speech, at least at some level, costs money to exercise. Political speech should be unlimited, thus you should be allowed to spend as much as you want.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Snoogoo 11 years, 10 months ago
    I guess I agree with the general rule that people and businesses should be allowed to spend their money on whatever they want. The problem is that the electorate is so stupid on average that they vote for candidates based on stupid things like physical appearance or who had the most tear jerking TV ad. The other issue is individuals or corporations that use money as a means to buy power over others which is supposed to be illegal for logical reasons but of course there are loopholes. When you allow pay to play to get out of hand you end up with a monarchy/oligarchy which I'm sure were not the founding fathers' intentions.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo