fishsupreme (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fishsupreme) wrote2003-05-02 03:15 pm
fishsupreme) wrote2003-05-02 03:15 pm
Campaign finance reform
A federal appeals court in Washington has just struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act that passed last year.
They struck down the "soft money" ban that was the key provision of the bill, and also (quoting MSNBC here):
The judges also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. The court let stand another part of the law, which had increased the amount of money that an individual could give to a candidate’s campaign from $1,000 to $2,000 per election. BCRA also doubled the amount that donors could give to state and local party committees to $10,000 a year.
Yes, after this little judicial edit, John McCain's little "get the money out of politics" act now does nothing except raise campaign contribution limits.
Since I find all campaign contribution or spending limits of any kind whatsoever (except for mandatory reporting of campaign contributions) to be a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, I think this is all terribly amusing.
They struck down the "soft money" ban that was the key provision of the bill, and also (quoting MSNBC here):
The judges also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. The court let stand another part of the law, which had increased the amount of money that an individual could give to a candidate’s campaign from $1,000 to $2,000 per election. BCRA also doubled the amount that donors could give to state and local party committees to $10,000 a year.
Yes, after this little judicial edit, John McCain's little "get the money out of politics" act now does nothing except raise campaign contribution limits.
Since I find all campaign contribution or spending limits of any kind whatsoever (except for mandatory reporting of campaign contributions) to be a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, I think this is all terribly amusing.
no subject
1) That large donations can have a large influence on the election results?
2) That large donations buy influence after the election?
3) That large donations can have some other effect? Please specify.
Second question:
Is there a difference between allowing large corporate donations and allowing large individual donations? Does this differ from having a cause based non-profit make the large donation?