
Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign Contributions - uptown
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html
======
jjoonathan
Campaigns cost money.

Politicians get the lion's share of that money from people expecting an ROI.

Our political system literally has a mandatory bribe quota.

> but in the case of company X the lobbying ROI is a net positive for
> everyone, so the system can't be all bad

Please list the top 10 donors (heck, I'll be generous: any 10 consecutive
donors) to any seat-holding political party of your choice, along with your
opinion of whether or not the policy they're after is net-beneficial to
society (+), zero sum (0), or a net loss to society (-). Alternatively, pick
the +/0/\- labels according to your unapologetic self-interest, since it's
reasonable to vote on that basis rather than trying to work out the whole "net
benefit to society" thing.

Let's focus on what lobbying IS instead of hoping (for example) that google
will displace comcast from the gravy train.

~~~
izendejas
Anyone that wants to hack this system of corruption, should join Lawrence
Lessig (Aaron Swartz)'s cause:

[http://www.nhrebellion.org/](http://www.nhrebellion.org/)

------
fourply
As a law-talking-guy, I can say: this is really, really bad. It's really
unusual to see such a split (4-1-4) in such an important decision, and it's
tough to say for sure what the law actually is now. One thing that's clear:
this doesn't bode well for American democracy UNLESS the legislature takes the
clear signal the Court appears to be trying to send and crafts new law to fix
the problems this decision creates.

~~~
ctdonath
The signal the Court appears to be trying to send is "Congress shall make no
law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". It's not a new
message, and not new that Congress is inclined to abridge it.

~~~
iandanforth
Money is not speech.

~~~
logfromblammo
Correct. Money is commerce. While it is true that people have as much freedom
to engage in commerce as they have to speak, candidates for public office do
not.

I can _offer_ a candidate as much money as I please, as is my right, but in
the interest of providing equal protection under the law to the voters, the
public may choose to prevent the candidate from _accepting_ more than a
certain amount from a single source.

Campaign contributions limits are not restrictions upon the rights of the
public; they are restrictions upon the privilege of representing other people
as part of the government. If you wish to retain your unlimited ability to
speak as a private individual, do not enter the public sector.

The same principle, applied by the courts elsewhere, would also strike down
laws preventing public servants from engaging in certain forms of political
activity. After all, they have freedom of speech as well, don't they?

I think that the most likely and most damaging response to this will be a
decreasing engagement by career politicians with near-the-median people and
increasing engagement with wealthy patrons. The interests represented will
shift accordingly.

~~~
smsm42
You're looking at it wrong. Nobody gives the candidate a suitcase packed with
dollar bills, not usually anyhow. The money is spent on ads, materials,
events, etc. Now, if I spend money on expressing my point of view that X is
true, and the candidate Y happens to make the point that X is true centerpiece
of his campaign, can you prohibit me from expressing my point of view? I never
gave a dime to Y, I may not even have met Y once, but we happen to agree on
point X. That is the question which Supreme Court is deciding - can my freedom
of speech be restricted if it benefits some politician? I say if you value
your freedom of speech, you can answer anything but "NO!". Otherwise, you'd be
able only speak about nonsense things like celebrity gossip and lolcats - as
soon as you get to serious things, there would be a politician whose view
aligns with yours or is opposite to yours, and as soon as that happens, your
speech would be either contributing to her campaign or to her opponent's, and
you'll be banned from speaking on the grounds of the limits to campaign
contributions.

>>> would also strike down laws preventing public servants from engaging in
certain forms of political activity

This is not the same. While everybody has right to free speech, nobody has
right to be a public servant. So once the person resigns from his public
servant position, she has full right to speak her mind. But while occupying
that position, certain restrictions - taken voluntarily as condition for this
assignment - may apply as long as you want to keep that position. You have the
full right to make face tattoos and avoid bathing, but if you join customer
service in a bank, they may not accept you unless you look and smell in a way
that don't make their clients faint. And if you are being appointed the head
of the IRS, it's better that you avoid political campaigning as long as you
are in that post. Not that it is easy to achieve, as it turns out, but we
should at least try. When we are employed, we give up certain freedoms -
freedom to choose where we are, what we do, what we say, to some measure, etc.
- in exchange for money. Not all employment requires this, but some do, and
it's nothing out for the ordinary. We are not employees of the Congress,
however - on the contrary, the Congress are employees of the citizens.

~~~
logfromblammo
If you are referring to in-kind donations, elections laws require that such
donations be treated as though the donor wrote the candidate a check, and the
candidate endorsed it right back over to them in exchange for the goods and
services actually rendered.

Direct support to a campaign and political advocacy are two different things.
This is why I can believe that the Citizens United case was not completely
ridiculous, and that this one is beyond reason. Your right to free speech ends
at the tip of your own tongue. If you give your words to someone else, he
might not be able to speak them.

In the same way, if you give control of some money to someone else, they will
be the ones responsible for how it gets spent, not you. They may be under
different contractual and legal obligations.

As is the case for people seeking public office. They must follow rules that
ordinary people will probably never even need to know.

~~~
smsm42
>>> Direct support to a campaign and political advocacy are two different
things.

No, not really. Giving candidate the money to buy ads and directly buying ads
is essentially the same thing from any aspect that may interest us.

>>> Your right to free speech ends at the tip of your own tongue.

This is obviously false. If that were true, we could not have free press, or
free TV, or any electronic or paper media. What we would have is what people
in USSR had - they were free to talk about politics in their own kitchen, but
once they said anything in public or tried any political action, they were
suppressed. This is not freedom, this is a mockery of it. And Founding Fathers
clearly never intended to treat freedom of speech that narrow - as a freedom
to produce any sounds you like with your throat and tongue. For a functioning
democracy, much broader freedoms - freedoms to publish your opinion as widely
as you can and engage in discussion with as many people as you can, and
exercise any political actions you can (excluding violence and other rights
violations, of course) - are absolutely necessary.

>>> if you give control of some money to someone else, they will be the ones
responsible for how it gets spent, not you

This is false, too. If you give somebody money and say "I want you to hire a
killer to murder this guy", you both would be part of criminal conspiracy.
That's how mafia bosses get jailed.

>>> As is the case for people seeking public office. They must follow rules
that ordinary people will probably never even need to know.

People seeking office have same rights as everybody else - because they _are_
everybody else. Any citizen can seek office and has right to do so. When _in_
the office, they have to accept certain limits that come with the job, but
when seeking office they are not under any obligation yet, and have absolutely
equal rights with any random citizen. All those "campaign finance" laws are
just a futile populistic attempt to control political discourse, and Supreme
Court is routinely shutting them down as infringing people's liberties, and
rightfully so.

~~~
logfromblammo
I am not able to comprehend the confusion of ideas required to formulate such
opinions.

Just from what I see here, there are contradictions. Political candidates are
at once both ventriloquist dummies and freewilled adults. Donors are
potentially liable for fraudulent campaigning. Challengers and incumbents
should play by a different set of rules.

I'm sure that we both consider ourselves fortunate that the other is not a
Supreme Court Justice.

------
001sky
Please amend the headline# to the actual one:

 _Supreme Court Strikes Down Aggregate Limits on Federal Campaign
Contributions_

So, at the end of the day individuals can spread their influence "a mile wide
and an inch deep". But this does not imply that such individuals can spend in
both unlimited depth and breadth. The primary limits (<$3K/per) remain
inplace. And the article also notes that this does not impact groups.

 _Wednesday’s decision concerned only contributions from individuals. Federal
law continues to ban contributions by corporations and unions._

Whether this is a good idea or not is debatable. But the editorialized
headline doesn't help communicate the actual news.

____________

# HN submitted> "Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits on Federal Campaign
Contributions"

~~~
uptown
The headline I originally submitted was the headline used by the NY Times at
the time the story was published. I've updated the submission to match the
change made by the NY Times per your suggestion.

------
Shivetya
Great news. The headline is misleading. Congress again was trying to play
games with who could donate to who/what and when they could and so and so on.
They were not interested in a level playing field, they were again protecting
their interest.

Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents and
their party. It in no way protects the right of the people to vote for whom
they want. The costs involved in modern campaigns can be insurmountable with
the restrictions placed on donations and expenditures. The costs have exceed
inflation, the limits have not.

Never ever support such restrictions just because you don't like the message
or messenger because you are merely handing someone the means to do the same
to you.

~~~
chez17
>Restricting how money is spent in political races only protects incumbents
and their party.

This is false.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-election-
money-2012-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-election-
money-2012-11)

People who spend more money win. So the rich and powerful can completely
override the majority of people. People with no connection to a race can
invest large amounts of money to secure a win. In fact, if you look around the
world, the _only_ way to make sure incumbents aren't over-protected is to
restrict money. Looking at the American system, I don't see how anyone could
utter the above line seriously. How has more money _not_ protected incumbents?

~~~
CWuestefeld
_People who spend more money win._

This is intuitive, and almost universally believed. But all actual data I'm
aware of doesn't support this.

for example [1]

 _conventional wisdom, especially among progressives, is that money can buy
elections. The Citizens United case was supposed to be the end of democracy
since it meant unlimited corporate spending on elections. If money really did
buy office, 2012 should have been great evidence for the hypothesis.

Instead 2012 looks like a case study in the powerlessness of money, in the
triumph of the autonomous voter. For instance, the Sunlight Foundation reports
that 2/3 of outside cash was spent on losers._

[1]
[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/money_has_littl....](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/11/money_has_littl.html)

~~~
mhurron
2012 didn't necessarily prove that money has little effect on elections, it
proved that money doesn't completely cover-up being a total jackass.

The best funded campaign still convinced ~47% of voters to vote for a
candidate that stated he didn't care about 47% of the country. That should be
downright scary.

~~~
tolmasky
Really. Really? Are you honestly proposing that campaign finance was
responsible for a Republican presidential candidate getting roughly half the
vote, just like in every other election in recent history? Come on. Do you
remember George W Bush's campaign in 2000? That was _before_ Super PACs and
after the most prosperous 8 years in American history. There are valid
arguments for campaign finance reform, "the guy I don't like didn't lose by a
wide enough margin" is _not_ one of them.

~~~
mhurron
Unlike "every other election in recent history" 2012 had a candidate that
openly stated that he did not care about roughly half the country. A rational
voting base would not be expected to throw a lot of support behind someone
taking that position, but they did.

So what I am suggesting is that throwing a shit-ton of money promoting a
horrible person worked, it brought a person who said "veterans, disabled
people, seniors, you know what guys, fuck you" on even standing with someone
who didn't. It just didn't convince enough people.

~~~
tolmasky
So for starters, just mathematically, your arguments don't necessarily hold
up, or rather aren't mutually exclusive. "This person said he didn't support
roughly half the people in this country, yet he got roughly half the vote".
OK, so maybe the _other half_ voted for him... There's nothing fundamentally
"irrational" about the results per se. Also, it almost sounds like you're too
young to have lived through other elections. This event clearly stands out in
your mind as _the_ political faux pas of the century or something, but I can
assure you in every election most candidates say or do stupid things of this
caliber and its par for the course for people to forgive them (What else are
you going to do? Sacrifice your personal identity and _vote for the other
guy???_ ).

Other things you're forgetting:

1\. Only 62.3% of eligible voters even voted. So its not like half the country
sided with him, its more like half of half (.47 * .623 = 29%). This also
ignores all the people that disagreed with him that weren't eligible to vote,
which is likely a LOT since it includes the undocumented and youth -- which
theoretically fall into the category he doesn't care about. _Right there
alone_ you have a better explanation than "money".

2\. Most people probably never even found out about Romney's comment, because
they never find out about anything. You seem to be politically motivated and
informed, you're making the mistake of assuming most other people are too.

3\. You ignore that many people have deal-breaker issues and will give their
guy a pass on literally _everything else_ , ON BOTH SIDES. If I could somehow
scientifically prove that a candidate would completely eliminate unemployment
and poverty, he'd probably still lose a significant portion of the vote if he
was overly pro-choice or pro-gay marriage. Same goes if he was pro-life or
anti-gay marriage.

4\. Both sides basically have half the media working for them spinning
regardless of how much money they have. So in an environment where the media
is constantly blowing out of proportion what "the other guy said" and going to
absurd lengths to rationalize what "our guy said", it is not unexpected that
the voting population becomes exhausted and skeptical about these events (this
is a rational response btw).

5\. People have their personal identities tied up in their political
positions. Its not just this Romney comment, most times people prefer to
defend their wrong positions than deal with the existential crisis that they
were "wrong". This has way more to do with politics being treated as a team
than as something external to yourself. You speak of a rational voting base? A
rational voting base would have no party affiliation whatsoever, it makes no
sense. You should be voting each time based on what is offered to you. Instead
they see their party as their family. In the same way that if your dad said
something unkosher you would take pains to understand what he "meant" while
others would not, so too do people of a party try to rationalize what their
candidate said vs what the other candidate said.

And so on. I'll reiterate that I'm making no comment on whether campaign
finance is good or bad, just suggesting that Romney losing by "not enough" is
just not a solid argument.

------
allochthon
This is another blow against what remains of a sane US political dialog. The
door has been further opened to the cheapening of American political discourse
by monied interests, who are able to overwhelm the public with their carefully
shaped messaging and attack ads. The current US Supreme Court is doing quite a
lot to move the US to a "one-dollar-one-vote" business model.

~~~
notdonspaulding
> The current US Supreme Court is doing quite a lot to move the US to a "one-
> dollar-one-vote" business model.

Can you name one federal government body in the US that takes its job more
seriously, or understands its limits and bounds more thoroughly, than the
SCOTUS?

Go ahead and try to find one. The SCOTUS is not perfect, it's made mistakes in
the past, but please understand that you have a nation of people looking to
them to make reasonable applications of law in extremely intricate situations.

Read the SCOTUS transcripts sometime of a polarizing issue and pay particular
attention to the questions that the justices _who oppose your own viewpoint_
will raise. They're deliberate, and precise, and unyielding to sensationalism.
I think you'll be surprised to find much less judicial agenda than you seem to
think SCOTUS is guilty of.

------
cobrausn
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Supe...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee#Super_PACs)

Practically speaking, as long as some needed transparency is in place, is
there much of a real difference to how things are currently run?

Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me. Was
there ever a time where the supreme court was this polarized?

~~~
smackfu
>Also, the rash of 5-4 decisions in the supreme court lately bothers me.

I believe this is actually the first 5-4 decision in the current term, which
has been going since October:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supre...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_term_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)

There have been a lot of 9-0 decisions, and several 6-3.

~~~
mason240
I'm guessing that 5-4 decisions tend to be more polarizing to the public as
well, generating more news, while 9-0 decisions The more controversial tend to
be more mundane, generating little attention.

~~~
smackfu
And a lot of Supreme Court decisions don't even make the news, because they
are deciding small bits of law that don't affect many people. Like the other
case decided today was about whether an airline could terminate someone's
membership in a frequent flyer program. The law was unclear, so the SCOTUS
ruled on it, but it's not something that means anything to most people.

------
ctdonath
A win for freedom of speech, and of the press. Running a press costs money, as
does speaking to more than a few people; if a group of people with common
interests choose to fund & pool their money to promote a message, they have
the right to do so.

Ruling here:
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf)

Crux of argument:

 _First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial
ability to engage in public discussion.” ... Distinguishing wealthy
individuals from corporations based on the latter’s special advantages of,
e.g., limited liability, does not suffice to allow laws prohibiting speech. It
is irrelevant for First Amendment purposes that corporate funds may “have
little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s
political ideas.” Austin, supra, at 660. All speakers, including individuals
and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their
speech, and the First Amendment protects the resulting speech._

That and related points go on in detail for 57 pages.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
Freedom of speech? It essentially turns individual voters without deep pockets
into the citizen equivalents of flyover states. All the Supreme Court did was
eliminate any pretense that the US isn't quickly turning into an oligarchy.

~~~
ewillbefull
This is very much a speech issue.

Citizens United overturned provisions in BCRA which prevented corporations
(which happens to include unions and non-profits) from _speaking about_ a
candidate 60 days before an election -- in the form of outlawed
"electioneering communications". That was the crux of the decision; the law
displayed speaker discrimination. It had nothing to do with monetary limits.

After Citizens United it's much easier for individuals without deep pockets to
pool their money together to run advertising campaigns or other forms of
political speech. Anyone can start a Super PAC and crowd fund for their cause,
and they have to do so independently of any related candidate.

Regardless, nobody's votes are being bought. You still control the outcome of
the election, nobody is forced to vote for anyone because they saw a campaign
ad for them.

~~~
dailyrorschach
It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the compelling
state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness and access in
elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations. Indeed so did
the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in Buckley. My
comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do want to point
out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits, is frankly a
small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform.

I understand your point, but I think it belies the reality of what takes place
in most campaigns from my professional experience here in DC, though yes it is
anecdotal of course. Yes, a small group of individuals can seek and gain
funding, and they do, but in order to have a serious outcome on a race, you
need to be able to shift vast sums of money and fast, often in the last 2
months. The Tea-Party influence on the 2010 midterm elections is a great
example, the money that supported those candidates, did not come from the tea-
party grassroots, but from a band of very rich donors, with very vested
interests in legislative outcomes. And I don’t mean to single out the GOP
here, the DNC has it’s own fair share of lobbied well-connected interests.
Then of course there are the industries and organizations that simply fund the
most likely to win in many races, ensuring candidate support for their
industry when the time comes for considering legislation.

If I was to start a Super PAC for lower class family concerns, say universal
Pre-K, how much of their disposable income do you think they could afford to
donate to a political cause? It’d be no where near the vast checks that can be
written by opposition groups. And even if successful, I will still likely get
outplayed in the long game with legislative lobbying since I don’t have the
continued funds to support an ongoing effort.

Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to
free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly
financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party
dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious
constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would
be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is
severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this
relatively modest change.

Finally, of course votes aren’t being bought in the election - but a campaign
costs a lot of money. [http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-
election-cos...](http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/politics/congress-election-
costs/) The average US House race will cost 1.6M to win and the Senate 10.4M
to win, and that increase far outpaces the rate of inflation. That money
coming in is critical to reaching voters, paying for GOTV, and ensuring
victory, beyond just the money spent on ads and outside group advertising.
Then of course, all of that money these candidates raise, it’s not free money
from well meaning corporations, they will expect to be repaid when the time
comes, and they are.

~~~
strlen
> _It is definitely a free speech issue, however, I’d argue that the
> compelling state interests in preventing corruption and ensuring fairness
> and access in elections, is a great enough one to merit modest limitations.
> Indeed so did the Supreme Court until only recently, after the upholding in
> Buckley. My comment is more about the overall nature of the issue, but I do
> want to point out first that today’s ruling over aggregate monetary limits,
> is frankly a small issue in the overall challenges faced in reform._ &

Thank you. My opinion is the opposite of yours: I think this and Citizens
United are the right decisions and free speech should be only be limited in a
few restricted circumstances like immediate incitement to violence or
terroristic threats. Yet, it's important to be honest about the trade off here
and not misrepresent the decisions (e.g., saying that CU determined that
"money is speech", etc...)

 _> Now what would be a solution that doesn’t infringe on individual rights to
free-speech, I’m not sure. Perhaps we should go back to completely publicly
financed elections, though that obviously benefits the current two-party
dichotomy over independent challengers, and would likely require serious
constitutional amendments to be considered. I admit that more thinking would
be required here, but I don’t think its a stretch to say the current system is
severely broken, and in fairness to all here, was broken well before this
relatively modest change._

Ideal solution for me would allow donations to political organizations,
including those that endorse candidates or lobby for bills (I don't like rent-
seeking by Comcast, but I very much like the ACLU, EFF, and others). At the
same time, the candidates themselves would rely (as you suggested) on public
financing. I think this would take a constitutional amendment (as would
overturning CU, but unlike an amendment to overturn CU it wouldn't set the
precedents of amending the constitution to curtail rights when they are
inconvenient), which should also mandate non-partisan drawing of electoral
districts (California went that route and with great results).

------
snake_plissken
This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via
campaign contributions has got to end. All of these restrictions were put into
place after Watergate for a reason; campaign contributions are a corrupting
influence in politics.

~~~
crazy1van
> This ongoing conflation of free speech and political participation via
> campaign contributions has got to end.

Should people be limited by how much time they can donate to volunteering for
a candidate? How about how many words they can write in favor of a candidate?
Why should someone who doesn't have the time to do those things but does have
the time to write a check be prohibited from participating in the campaign
process?

~~~
buerkle
However, unlike money, time is limited. No one person can contribute more than
24 hours in a single day.

~~~
crazy1van
Are you implying that money is unlimited?

~~~
buerkle
In this context, money is effectively unlimited. Not sure why people are ok
with allowing unlimited funding of campaigns by individuals or corporations
while on the other hand accepting similar contributions for anything but a
campaign is a felony (ie. bribery)

------
ChrisGaudreau
I must say I was quite worried when I woke up and saw the headlines. They
originally made it seem as though the Court struck down _all_ contribution
limits, even to individual candidates. Was relieved to learn that wasn't the
case. I wonder if we're headed down that road, though.

------
denzil_correa
I understand there's a 2600US$ cap on "each gift to a political candidate" and
today's ruling doesn't affect this cap. I presume a donor could still give
make a very high donation in multiples of 2600US$. Am I right?

~~~
hga
No, the caps on contributions to each "point source", you might call it, e.g.
each candidate, remain the same.

What was overturned was overall spending limits, that you could only donate a
total of X dollars per election or whatever.

~~~
denzil_correa
NPR is reporting otherwise

> Overby says that even with the individual candidate limit still in place,
> the ruling "[makes] it possible for a donor to give a party leader a check
> for more than $1 million, with the money getting parceled out in $2,600
> amounts to the candidates."

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2014/04/02/298326893/sup...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2014/04/02/298326893/supreme-court-strikes-down-overall-limits-on-
political-contributions)

I'm confused!

~~~
hga
So am I (well, not that much, that NPR would make a mistake biased towards
their bias, or outright lie, would be nothing new). That's another "point
source", of course, but per this (now slightly out of date) chart from the
FEC:
[http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml](http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml)
there would seem to be a limit to how much you could send to a "party leader".

Maybe it would have to be washed though 200 (!) "political committees" to
allow for 1M in 5K max chunks ... which would seem to be a bit obvious.

Although that would be a loophole the Congress could close up, assuming it
exists. E.g. a limit to the total to a "party leader" or PACs he controls
would fly with 8 of the Supremes.

