• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections

Ikari

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
107,130
Reaction score
89,324
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
apnews.com

Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections

The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president.
apnews.com apnews.com

The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive, backed by President Donald Trump’s administration, to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president.

The justices said Monday they will review an appellate ruling that upheld a provision of federal election law that is more than 50 years old, ignoring pleas from Democrats to leave the law in place. The Supreme Court itself upheld it in 2001.

But since Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court in 2005, a conservative majority has upended a variety of congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.

Without the limits on party spending, large donors would be able to skirt caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate, supporters of the law say.
Click to expand...

Trump playing for more control by the Oligarchy. Only the rich need apply.
 
 
 
Ikari said:
apnews.com

Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections

The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president.
apnews.com apnews.com



Trump playing for more control by the Oligarchy. Only the rich need apply.
Click to expand...
To me this is the number one reason politics in this country are so ****ed up. Both sides take advantage, Trump has ramped up to a new level. We desperately need campaign finance reform.
 
Taylor said:
Fortunately, it doesn't always work out the way the Oligarchy wants it to...


Perhaps the Oligarchy is better at making money than hand-selecting candidates.
Click to expand...
They just have to fund candidates to get what they want. It's how it's been going, Trump just wants to take the brakes off. Sell out the Republic to the highest bidder.
 
Taylor said:
Fortunately, it doesn't always work out the way the Oligarchy wants it to...


Perhaps the Oligarchy is better at making money than hand-selecting candidates.
Click to expand...
This has been the conservative response to money in politics now that Trump has set up a very public bribery ring in the WH.
 
Taylor said:
Fortunately, it doesn't always work out the way the Oligarchy wants it to...


Perhaps the Oligarchy is better at making money than hand-selecting candidates.
Click to expand...
It’s working out exactly how they want. Trump puts on his clown show for his morons while he robs us blind.
 
Taylor said:
You don't think the Oligarchy screwed up by backing Harris?
Click to expand...
They would have gotten some shit they wanted out of her too. But Trump was backed by the Oligarchy, funded by billionaires. They get far more out of Trump than they would have out of Harris, but they fund both sides to own both sides.
 
Ikari said:
apnews.com

Supreme Court takes up a Republican appeal to end limits on party spending in federal elections

The Supreme Court will take up a Republican-led drive to wipe away limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...

The Roberts Supreme Court, itself corrupt via bribery (Thomas/Alito), will of course comply with the campaign-contribution demands of the wealthy.

We'll have the most corrupt governments money can buy. Can you say "banana republic"?

P.S. If the SC doesn't have 5 Justices to vote Yes on birthright citizenship, we are truly truly ****ed.

This is why they only voted on proceedural rather than on substantive grounds the other day viv-a-vis birthright citizenship.

If birthright citizenship doesn't exist, then who the **** are we as Americans? As a cohesive people?

Who would be American if no one is actually born American?? No other country in the world has such problems with basic birthrights.

Neither did we until the Federalist Society engineered our current Supreme Court. And dark money payrolled the Federalist Society.

We are more corrupt than 1998 Ukraine for Christ's sake. wtf?
 
Last edited:
Only Congress ( according to SCOTUS "money is speech" ) can do campaign reform and even there it would have to be public financing
 
Ikari said:
They would have gotten some shit they wanted out of her too. But Trump was backed by the Oligarchy, funded by billionaires. They get far more out of Trump than they would have out of Harris, but they fund both sides to own both sides.
Click to expand...
That's the only "both sides" argument that actually has legs.
 
Ikari said:
They would have gotten some shit they wanted out of her too. But Trump was backed by the Oligarchy, funded by billionaires. They get far more out of Trump than they would have out of Harris, but they fund both sides to own both sides.
Click to expand...
www.ndtv.com

More Billionaires Back Kamala Harris Over Donald Trump. Who They Are

As the 2024 US presidential race heats up, billionaires across the country are quietly taking sides, providing significant financial backing to either Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump.
www.ndtv.com www.ndtv.com

They wanted to rob us blind.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Roberts Supreme Court, itself corrupt via bribery (Thomas/Alito), will of course comply with the campaign-contribution demands of the wealthy.

We'll have the most corrupt governments money can buy. Can you say "banana republic"?

P.S. If the SC doesn't have 5 Justices to vote Yes on birthright citizenship, we are truly truly ****ed.

This is why they only voted on proceedural rather than on substantive grounds the other day viv-a-vis birthright citizenship.
Click to expand...
Must be another example of "MAGA condemnations are just confessions" when they were running about saying how Biden was gonna turn us into a banana republic.
 
Taylor said:
www.ndtv.com

More Billionaires Back Kamala Harris Over Donald Trump. Who They Are

As the 2024 US presidential race heats up, billionaires across the country are quietly taking sides, providing significant financial backing to either Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump.
www.ndtv.com www.ndtv.com

They wanted to rob us blind.
Click to expand...
They are robbing us blind. While you're like "your billionaires are worse!" the rest of us don't want billionaires to run politics.

Big difference. Shouldn't be a partisan issue.
 
lynnwinslow said:
@anatta and @Taylor , do you think this country needs campaign finance reform?
Click to expand...
It would be preferrable.. need is a big question. Like i said though the only thing that would pass SCOTUS muster is public financing.
Only Congress can do that and they wont
 
1751298424728.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom