Generally speaking, if the grotesquely mal-named leftist special interest group, Common Cause, is against something – anything – then you know it’s a pretty good bet you should be in favor of whatever it is that Common Cause opposes. Such is the case with today’s Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon Versus Federal Election Commission (FEC). I heard a Common Cause spokesperson on the radio decrying the Supreme Court’s decision today and how it may spell the end of democracy.
Or, in other words, there are times I hate the Supreme Court and there are times I love the Supreme Court. This is one of the times I love the Supreme Court.
According to Politico, “The latest Supreme Court decision on campaign finance rules is being alternately hailed and criticized as a game-changer that will open a gusher of new money into politics.”
In McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a 5-4 Supreme Court decision yanks out yet another limit to campaign finance donations.
But, what does the decision of the Supremes mean really? Truth be told, not as much as its proponents might like, nor as much as its ridiculous, soon-to-be-crying opponents fear. But don’t you worry, the opponents are sure to milk today’s decision as hard and as long as possible for the ironic purposes of filling their own coffers.
For instance, if any one of y’all now think you as a result of today’s decision you can now give as much money as you want to any candidate for office that you might like, well, as far as I know, I’m sorry – THAT, you can’t do.
Alack and alas, McCutcheon did not shoot down the limit on how much an individual can give to either a candidate or a political Party.
What the decision DID do was strike down the aggregate limit on how much people can give in total donations to campaigns and parties. This means that, instead of stopping when they hit that now meaningless aggregate limit, y’all can keep giving that maximum donation to every single candidate and party committee they desire – a great victory for free speech!
In other words, individual donors can spread their wealth around to a greater number of candidates….but can’t give an unlimited amount to any one candidate. In 2014, for example, the max donation is $5,200 per candidate and $32,400. The difference is that now you can give the $5,200 to as many candidates as you’d like – because your aggregate (total) limit just got blown up, up and away.
(The Oppressors just got a (very) little less oppressive)
While driving today, I heard someone else on the radio comparing today’s decision to that of Citizens United v. FEC from a few years back – 2010, I believe. As you may recall, that decision allows for unlimited spending on political ads by corporations and unions. Partially as a result of CU v. FEC, a later lower court decision allowed individuals to donate unlimited sums to super PACs. The decisions are what allowed the leftwing lunatic and Hollywood bon vivant, Jeffrey Katzenberg to donate $3 million to a super PAC supporting President Barack Obozo in 2012.
Now, unfortunately, you still have to disclose your donations – which I’ve always thought to be a particularly nasty and insidious form of government intimidation. I’ve always believed that whoever should be able to give as much as they want to whomever the Hell they please…and that no one person or agency has any business knowing.
But, still, today’s Supreme Court Decision is at least a step in the right direction. And, as stated at the beginning of this piece, Common Cause hates it. So, at least a mini-celebration is in order.