The court found that the $5,000 annual limit on contributions to such groups is unconstitutional, writing that the Citizens United ruling "resolves this appeal," in favor of SpeechNow.org, a group that appears to have been created with the specific purpose of challenging campaign-finance regulations.If the soft-money cap is eliminated, there really will be no limit to the amount of money that corporations and the wealthy can pour into campaigns. The faster that gets struck down, the more millions will go to in effect buying elections.
A report on SCOTUSblog concludes that the ruling "significantly broadens the impact of Citizens United, extending its constitutional reasoning from campaign spending to campaign donations."
Now, the good news that could turn bad: A three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court unanimously rejected a bid by the RNC to get the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban struck down. The RNC is seeking to raise unlimited contributions from corporations and individuals.
But the RNC seems to have expected the setback. It already announced earlier this month that it has hired top conservative lawyer Ted Olson for the inevitable challenge to the Supreme Court. And as election law expert Rick Hasen notes, today's ruling appears to offer the RNC encouragement that they may get a better result there.
Campaign 2010 is going to get really, really nasty. And thanks to SCOTUS, there won't be any way to avoid the roadblock media saturation.
Posts
1 comment:
Yea I agree there has to be some kind of limit otherwise this is going to lead to more corrupted officials voting for who's got the biggest wallet and now their constituents.
I guess for the current congress at least they would be getting financing since they already aren't voting for their constituents.
Something does need to be done.
Post a Comment