Late last year, Congress increased the contribution limits for individuals who give to political parties. The higher limits only include contributions for one of three purposes: (1) Political party legal expenses; (2) expenses of putting on a national convention; (3) expenses in buying, building, or maintaining national party headquarters. On February 13, the Federal Election Commission put out these rules for how political parties are to handle and report such contributions. Thanks to Thomas Jones for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
What the…? Richard! Limits on contributions to political parties?
Limits???
Who rewrote the first amendment while we weren’t looking?
John McCain.
Quite an accomplishment. When did John McCain achieve multiple statehood?
Maybe you meant John “McClain?” The Die Hard dude can do just about anything.
But back to the first amendment. It was just a few days ago that you told me that political contributions couldn’t be limited because that would be a limit on first amendment rights to free speech and the first amendment would therefore have to be rewritten.
So, seriously – who rewrote the first amendment in the past couple weeks?
John McClane would be much better in the Senate than his Henry Kissinger sycophant synonym: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/01/29/code-pink-tries-to-arrest-91-year-old-kissinger-for-war-crimes-get-smacked-down-by-94-year-old-george-schultz/
i didn’t say contributions couldn’t be limited. I said independent expenditures couldn’t be limited. That is what the US Supreme Court said in 1976 in Buckley v Valeo, and most people think most of that decision was written by Justice Brennan, although it was “per curiam.” No one ever rails against Buckley v Valeo.
Sorry folks — NO money amount in the REAL 1st Amdt from 1789-1791.
1976 Buckley was influenced by the Nixon bribes stuff, Watergate Conspiracy, etc.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
No…what you actually said, Richard, was that the first amendment would have to be rewritten to restrict independent contributions. That was wrong.
The first amendment didn’t need to be rewritten to constrain speech that is inflammatory, obscene, incites lawless action, defamatory, and so on. The USSC has given us myriad interpretations of the first amendment over time, and as we have learned many times, especially from this particular court, “settled law” is not always kept “settled.” Interpretation of the first amendment by the USSC is always subject to change.
So when the subject of campaign finance reform comes up, and someone argues that independent contributions should be limited or otherwise regulated, don’t make the specious argument that the first amendment would prohibit such regulation. It does not.
Consider this argument, for instance – does Congress have the right to regulate commercial transactions? If so, how is it possible to distinguish between outlays of corporate cash that are commercial transactions, and those that are expressions of “free speech?” In fact, can any outlay of cash by a corporation be deemed as not being made in the only interest a for-profit corporation has – increasing shareholder wealth? And how can the increase of shareholder wealth be deemed as anything BUT a commercial transaction and therefore subject to regulation by Congress?
And how do you feel about the “independently” funded ads out there now arguing that American doesn’t need a “dynasty?” Clearly aimed at Jeb Bush, how can those “independently funded expressions of free speech” possibly be distinguished from the activities of any other individual opponent’s campaign or prospective campaign? You’ve already conceded that money is fungible, although getting you to do so was like pulling a mouthful of teeth. So, back to my supermarket example – you give me a ten dollar bill outside the market and tell me I can spend it on anything but beer, and when I come out I have a bag of fruit which I purchased with your tenner, and a six pack which I claim I bought with the ten bucks I had in my pocket before we met. So…who bought the beer – you or me?
Do you think that direct attacks on specific candidates, funded by “independent contributions” are really and truly “uncoordinated?” Is “coordination” with a campaign’s management really a valid test?
Bad USSC decisions can be overturned without rewriting the first amendment. But in order to get a chance to do so, smart people like you need to stop defending patently dumb decisions.
Why is it that 3rd parties which spend so much money, or have so much money donated to their candidates have to report to the F.E.C., but some of these same 3rd parties are not recognized by the state as political party. If this isn’t a case of “double standard” I don’t know the meaning of the words.