Supreme Court building, Washington, DC, USA. Front facade. (Photo: Daderot / Wikimedia Creative Commons)
Apr 02, 2014
In a boon to the role of big money in politics, the Supreme Court on Wednesday narrowly struck down overall limits on the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates, parties and political action committees during the federal two-year election cycle.
The decision left the cap of $2,600 per election that an individual can give to any single federal candidate but removed the limit on the grand total that can be contributed to all federal candidates.
The ruling means that a single person can write a $5.9 million check for expenditure by candidates, political parties and political committees, according to Public Citizen.
"This is truly a decision establishing plutocrat rights," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, slamming the ruling as a "devastating blow at the very foundation of our democracy."
The 5 to 4 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts follows the widely criticized Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010 that allows corporations to independently spend unlimited amounts of money to influence politics.
"Today's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC is Citizens United round two, further opening the floodgates for the nation's wealthiest few to drown out the voices of the rest of us," said Miles Rapoport, president of Common Cause.
"With these two rulings, corporations and billionaires like the Koch brothers will be able to use their money to buy more influence in more places, gaining a tighter grip on our government," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.
Commentary and updates are being posted on Twitter.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In a boon to the role of big money in politics, the Supreme Court on Wednesday narrowly struck down overall limits on the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates, parties and political action committees during the federal two-year election cycle.
The decision left the cap of $2,600 per election that an individual can give to any single federal candidate but removed the limit on the grand total that can be contributed to all federal candidates.
The ruling means that a single person can write a $5.9 million check for expenditure by candidates, political parties and political committees, according to Public Citizen.
"This is truly a decision establishing plutocrat rights," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, slamming the ruling as a "devastating blow at the very foundation of our democracy."
The 5 to 4 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts follows the widely criticized Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010 that allows corporations to independently spend unlimited amounts of money to influence politics.
"Today's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC is Citizens United round two, further opening the floodgates for the nation's wealthiest few to drown out the voices of the rest of us," said Miles Rapoport, president of Common Cause.
"With these two rulings, corporations and billionaires like the Koch brothers will be able to use their money to buy more influence in more places, gaining a tighter grip on our government," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.
Commentary and updates are being posted on Twitter.
In a boon to the role of big money in politics, the Supreme Court on Wednesday narrowly struck down overall limits on the amount of money individuals can contribute to candidates, parties and political action committees during the federal two-year election cycle.
The decision left the cap of $2,600 per election that an individual can give to any single federal candidate but removed the limit on the grand total that can be contributed to all federal candidates.
The ruling means that a single person can write a $5.9 million check for expenditure by candidates, political parties and political committees, according to Public Citizen.
"This is truly a decision establishing plutocrat rights," said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, slamming the ruling as a "devastating blow at the very foundation of our democracy."
The 5 to 4 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts follows the widely criticized Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in 2010 that allows corporations to independently spend unlimited amounts of money to influence politics.
"Today's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC is Citizens United round two, further opening the floodgates for the nation's wealthiest few to drown out the voices of the rest of us," said Miles Rapoport, president of Common Cause.
"With these two rulings, corporations and billionaires like the Koch brothers will be able to use their money to buy more influence in more places, gaining a tighter grip on our government," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.
Commentary and updates are being posted on Twitter.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.