I Believe The Supreme Court Is Majority Moronic
Huffington Post
February 19, 2013
SUPREME COURT TAKES CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE,
WILL RULE ON CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme court announced Tuesday that it will hear a case challenging the per-biennial cycle limit on campaign limits from individuals.
The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, argues that the limit on what individuals are allowed to give candidates ($46,200 per two-year cycle)
and parties and PACs ($70,800 per two-year cycle) is an unconstitutional violation of
the individual donor's free speech rights.
The U.S. Court of Appeals already ruled in favor of keeping the biennial limits,
which have been in place since 1971
and were upheld in the 1976 Buckley v Valeo case.
By accepting this case, the Supreme Court is stepping into the thick of another controversial campaign finance case just three years after ruling in the
Citizens United v FEC that corporations and unions can spend freely on elections.
If the court rules against the two-year limits, it would mark the first time a court has overturned a part of the landmark Buckley ruling that deals with campaign contribution limits.
This is not terribly surprising as the court has been hostile to campaign finance laws
ever since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a supporter of campaign finance regulation,
was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's conservative bloc who
is opposed to campaign regulation.
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/supreme-court-campaign-finance_n_2717r27.html
February 19, 2013
SUPREME COURT TAKES CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE,
WILL RULE ON CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme court announced Tuesday that it will hear a case challenging the per-biennial cycle limit on campaign limits from individuals.
The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, argues that the limit on what individuals are allowed to give candidates ($46,200 per two-year cycle)
and parties and PACs ($70,800 per two-year cycle) is an unconstitutional violation of
the individual donor's free speech rights.
The U.S. Court of Appeals already ruled in favor of keeping the biennial limits,
which have been in place since 1971
and were upheld in the 1976 Buckley v Valeo case.
By accepting this case, the Supreme Court is stepping into the thick of another controversial campaign finance case just three years after ruling in the
Citizens United v FEC that corporations and unions can spend freely on elections.
If the court rules against the two-year limits, it would mark the first time a court has overturned a part of the landmark Buckley ruling that deals with campaign contribution limits.
This is not terribly surprising as the court has been hostile to campaign finance laws
ever since Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a supporter of campaign finance regulation,
was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's conservative bloc who
is opposed to campaign regulation.
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/supreme-court-campaign-finance_n_2717r27.html
By:
goodogstay
Age:
46-50
,
Male
