It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Just one month after the Supreme Court struck down aggregate campaign contribution limits, Republican Party officials are set to join what may be the next big court challenge in the ongoing push to unravel campaign finance laws. The case has not yet been filed, but it already has a winning pedigree: The lawsuit was conceived by James Bopp, the Indiana-based lawyer who was behind Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and involved in McCutcheon v. FEC -- the last two major Supreme Court victories for those attacking campaign finance limits. The target of this new challenge is the ban on political parties soliciting and receiving unlimited contributions, known as "soft money," that was enacted in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law. The lawsuit aims to overturn that ban and more.
Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Could we then get rid of lobbying altogether? And what if some people said "no" - do they then not get to vote? No, everyone gets to vote, regardless of how you decided about the $3. ("Beggars" I mumbled to myself as I checked "NO") So - you're not buying the right to vote, and you don't get to pick the candidate you want to donate to. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."
originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Could we then get rid of lobbying altogether? And what if some people said "no" - do they then not get to vote? No, everyone gets to vote, regardless of how you decided about the $3. ("Beggars" I mumbled to myself as I checked "NO") So - you're not buying the right to vote, and you don't get to pick the candidate you want to donate to. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
The $3 election fund collection is a waste of the $3, if you look at how federal elections are conducted. Neither of the two party monopoly would give up the cash raked in by lobbying. It just looks to me as if the GOP is successful, we could see things like, "weighted voting" by how much tax is paid or something like that. You might see corporations running for office. You might even see a corporation declaring itself a sovereign nation and seceding from the US. The GOP is already trying to manipulate voting laws to limit the voting potential of the poor. It's really out in the open isn't it?
I sincerely wonder about the core values of people voting for this? Do they think their position in life will be improved or what?
originally posted by: Willtell
All we can do is try to be practical and elect the half human democrats versus the no human GOP, BASED ON ISSUES.