SCOTUS Strikes Another Blow

Chief Justice Roberts

The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning struck down a 40-year-old ban on aggregate contributions that a single donor can give to candidates and party committees. In short, the court's ruling means that a single contributor is no longer capped on how many candidates and party committees he/she can give to in a given election cycle. It keeps in place the federal campaign limits that restrict how much a donor can give to any one candidate or to any one party committee.

What does this decision mean?

For the sixth time the Roberts' Court poked holes in legislation designed to stem the flow of money into the election system. The decision says handing a suitcase of money to a member of Congress and getting an explicit agreement to do something isn't allowed. The movie American Hustle is an example of this. Roberts says trying to use your money to get influence with members of Congress is at the heart of the First Amendment. In other words, spending and contributions are a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. The only limiting principle is "when money buys a specific favor from a particular politician".

When you finish reading all the articles on this decision, in my opinion, it'll all boils down to the following:
The Rich not only have a "voice", but their wealth allows them to have a louder voice than the common man. The Rich have even more power to influence election outcomes. End of story.

Posted in: Chief Justice Roberts,election system,McCutcheon vs FEC,money in politics,Politics,SCOTUS,The Emerald Quill