Judge strikes down NY limits on donations to 'super PACs'

Comments (8)
willich6 wrote:

I believe in 1st Amendment protections, but I’m troubled by the perception that our govt is ‘for sale’ to the highest bidder. This can’t be what the Framers had in mind; so I’m looking for some middle ground.
How does the average citizen retain an interest in the political process if it can be bought and paid for by special interests – both progressive and conservative..

Apr 24, 2014 3:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

It is quickly becoming clear that the only way average citizens are going ot be able to have the same influence over elections as those with lots of money is by a Constitutional Amendment.

Apr 24, 2014 3:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

Wait….a judge who bases his decision on the rule of law in spite his personal biases. I will drink to that.

Let’s see, this week SCOTUS says you cannot use race as admissions criteria (in other words you cannot legalize discrimination.) And, another judge says, “in spite of my personal opinion, the law says…” Perhaps this is the start of a new trend.

Apr 24, 2014 4:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:

The government is, and has been, always available to the highest bidder at the expense of the common voter. The money flows to both sides of the political landscape–see the Koch’s and Steyer’s, the unions, and the $25000/plate dinners. Anyone who thinks one party is less culpable than the other lives in fantasy land.

Term limits is the only viable solution available. 12 years aggregate service in Congress, and then you’re relegated to the world of the working taxpayer.

Apr 24, 2014 4:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4825 wrote:

My 2 cents:
Those that are voting are certainly capable enough to wade through the money that is thrown into the political arena. I do not worry about the dollars that folks like George Soros throws into the democrat party because I know that there is plenty of information out there available to anyone that wants to search for the truth. Money put into the political arena does not make “government for sale”. Dollars do not always equal the votes. It is a means for both parties to attempt to inform or misinform the public, call it what you will. It is up to the voters at large to sort through the facts and make an informed decision. If you limit donations then you limit the ability of the parties to inform. We do not need to muzzle anyone from either side.

Apr 24, 2014 4:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bakhtin wrote:

4825 wrote:
“My 2 cents”

A paid poster supporting unlimited amounts of money in politics? That is funny…

4825 wrote:
“If you limit donations then you limit the ability of the parties to inform. We do not need to muzzle anyone from either side.”

If you limit donations you limit the ability of the best funded to muzzle the lesser funded, which is not free speech. It is suppressing free speech.

4825 wrote:
” I know that there is plenty of information out there available to anyone that wants to search for the truth”

You don’t do that, so what makes you think everybody else will?

Most people have other things to do, and hence get there information from advertising. Simple common sense says that PACs wouldn’t throw billions into advertising if you notion that it can all be undone by ten minutes at a computer were true.

Most of those that do sit at a computer searching the ‘truth’ do little more than trawling for confirmation of their existing views – look at you right-wingers glued to Fox, for example. Your only exposure to alternative views is from advertising.

What those who favour unlimited funding want to do, very obviously, is buy up all the prime air time and advertising estate to deny the opposition a voice. Very simply, those with the most money get the biggest audience, and that denies the opposition their opportunity to be heard. It is the media equivalent of shouting down the opposition.

… and you conclude that this is a triumph of free speech.

Apr 24, 2014 10:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

willich6 wrote: “This can’t be what the Framers had in mind; so I’m looking for some middle ground.”

We had a middle ground. You can donate to campaigns, but there were limits on how much you could give to try to level the playing field. That middle ground is no more.

Apr 25, 2014 9:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
4ngry4merican wrote:

COindependent wrote: “Koch’s and Steyer’s, the unions, and the $25000/plate dinners. Anyone who thinks one party is less culpable than the other lives in fantasy land.”

No sir, it would be you that resides in fantasy land if you think that both parties are equally guilty. Unions are a convenient bogeyman for the right but the fact of the matter is that the Koch empire has given more than three times as much campaign financing as the top ten unions COMBINED. Not exactly the same thing.

“Term limits is the only viable solution available. 12 years aggregate service in Congress, and then you’re relegated to the world of the working taxpayer.”

Now here I agree entirely.

Apr 25, 2014 9:48am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.