Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission correctly struck down limits on the total amount of money a person can contribute to all federal candidates and to political parties and PACs in a two-year election cycle.
After all, what part of “Congress shall make no law” provides the specific authority for Congress to limit what a person may give to a political party? Or the number of candidates one may support?
But in his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that, “Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.”
“No matter what five Supreme Court justices say,” announced Public Citizen, “the First Amendment was never intended to provide a giant megaphone for the wealthiest to use to shout down the rest of us.”
I want the public to be heard, not shouted down.
Which is why it is not Breyer, but Justice Clarence Thomas who is right: this ruling didn’t go far enough. While justly removing the limits on the aggregate amount a wealthy person can contribute, the Court upheld the limit of $2,600 on what you or I can give to a single candidate.
The super-wealthy can spend millions in an independent expenditure for their preferred candidate. Fine. It’s their money. Yet, a person of more modest means doesn’t have the dough to launch an effective independent effort.
Instead, if you felt strongly enough, you could dip into savings or work a second job to afford to give, say, $3,000 or $4,000. Except that our campaign finance laws prevent it. This is the limit that affects the most people. Non-rich people.
Stop limiting the little guy.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
11 replies on “Limiting the Little Guy”
Bull frigging $hit!! You are dumber than a fence post.
Reading Jatr comments is always fun. His vocabulary and comments sound like a not very bright 5 or so year old’s trying to shock someone.
(He has made nasty comments about me, Drik; and others, none of which make sense, other then to ‑I would not dignify his comments by saying criticize- demean us and our views.
Nat Hentoff (is or was-not sure if he is still around and if so, still writing) wrote a book ’ FREE SPEECH FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE”. Jatr is a prime example of that.
Well Jay-poo, I’m glad you are amused. Which are you – REPUBLIKOOK or TEABAGGER? That appears to be the only people on this site with the exception of yours truly.
Just because you post your opinions doesn’t make them right. The same with mine. Paul is a cherry-picker. The founding fathers were not infallible. They had slaves, refused to let women vote and some were drunkards. And I am 100% certain that they didn’t consider money as speechand would not they have considered corporations “people”. But Paul, you and the other PUKES/BAGGERS because you are incapable of independent thought.
JATR:
Do you understand how people not sharing your political perspective would think you’re not making legitimate points?
How is using all caps and insulting people effective at bringing them around to seeing things your way?
Paul:
I just responded to JATR, but he won’t see it unless he happens to come back to your site. You should switch over to Disqus (which is free), so that people are notified automatically when someone responds to their post.
People arguing back and forth stimulates interest in a site. Look what AlterNet has been able to accomplish, even though many of their articles are relentlessly clueless.
I think you could turn Common Sense into a monster, but only if posters can respond to each other.
JATR is 100% certain that the founders would not have equated money with speech.
One argument against that is in the closing line of the Declaration of Independence, where the signers pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.
As for the idea that limiting donations protects the little guy, we have one thing to counter all the money that candidates get from the rich: our vote.
The Kochs and Soroses and other moguls might be able to sponsor tv ads and even get personal audiences with candidates but they still have just one vote each. Nothing is stopping the millions of us who feel left out from making our voices heard at the ballot box.
Imagine if we little people all supported and voted for candidates other than Dems or GOP. What would they do?
Pat, you must be really naive. Vote? Here is a link to the 12 most gerrymandered districts in the U.S. http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/the-top-ten-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/ It doesn’t matter whether you vote or not. The incumbents are a lock to be reelected.
Vote? In NC, the REPUBLIKOOKS/TEABAGGERS are shortening the early voting period. Why? It was too successful and blacks and poor people voted then. They are moving voting places from college campuses in order to suppress the vote. They are also requiring a picture voter ID but college ID cards are not acceptable. Why? All done to suppress the vote.
I have ZERO respect fot the REPUBLIKOOKS/TEA BAGGERS who are running this state into the ground.
The KOCH TURDS are spending massive amounts in this state and they don’t even live here.
Vote? Are you shitting me?
Respect you assholes? Fuck no. You are all trash.
JATR strikes again with
well thought out argumentsjuvenile insults.Fuck you PICKSHIT!!!
Jatr
PICTURE ID IS LIMITING VOTING? BY WHOM? ILLEGALS? PEOPLE VOTING MULTIPLE TIMES?
I WENT TO HOME DEPOT, TO EXCHANGE – EXCHANGE-NOT RETURN‑A DEFECTIVE ITEM-COST WAS ABOUT $10. I HAD PAID CASH, AND HAD THE RECEIPT. THEY NEEDED PICTURE ID TO EXCHANGE THE ITEM.
COLLEGE CAMPUSES- AND THE STUDENTS ALSO VOTE IN THEIR HOME STATE? SUCH A THING AS ABSENTEE BALLOTS, IF NEED EARLY VOTING.
AND LIBERTURD DEMOCRATS DON’T GERRYMANDER? GET A FUCKING LIFE, ANALPORE
You dumb MOTHER FUCKING BASTARD! You don’t have the sense of a fence post. Read about something before you comment DICK FACE.
All gerrymandering is bad you ASSHOLE.