SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Supreme Court building, Washington, DC, USA. Front facade. (Photo: Daderot / Wikimedia Creative Commons)
In 'Blow to Democracy,' SCOTUS Strikes Down Campaign Contribution Limits
Ruling in closely watched McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case slammed as 'establishing plutocrat rights'
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.