An Alabama man's case — which argues that the overall limits on an individual's campaign contributions are too low — is now headed to the Supreme Court, the New York Times reports.
In 2010, the same court ended limits on corporations and unions when it comes to independent campaign spending. The so-called Citizens United case opened the door to the creation of Super PACS, which can spend an unlimited amount of money as long as they don't coordinate directly with a candidate.
This case involves the overall limits on an individual's candidate and group contributions.
According to the Times, it "challenges only aggregate limits — overall caps on contributions to several candidates or committees — and does not directly attack the more familiar basic limits on contributions to individual candidates or committees."
In the Alabama case, the plaintiff argues that the two-year $46,200 limit for contributions to multiple candidates and $70,800 limit for contributions to groups are too low.
Should the law limit the total of what one person can contribute to a wide variety of candidates and groups?
Take our poll and tell us in the comments.
You're right about the amount spent being obscene. However, as we have learned--especially over the past four years--as long as some sort of Presidential event was tied in, the President can campaign all he wants AND WE DIRECTLY PAY FOR IT. No challenger stands a chance against that. Even this politics 'junkie' is tired of the never-ending campaigning. Heck, VP Biden gave a campaign speech in the middle of his USNA Commissioning speech to my son's class. Talk about repugnant! It kills me to say this but perhaps Bill Maher was right--one term, 6 years. Maybe not for the same reasons, though. Perhaps even one Senate term, certainly no more than two. Three House terms seems reasonable. State and local elections have become more of a 'vote for me cuz I've been here for awhile.' The one problem we'll never be rid of is the media. I don't think there's ANY answer for that. Steve
The problem with that is how you define contributions by organizations. Go to any decent-sized candidate or agenda rally and you'll see lots of people who were brought in by a group and often paid by that group. You don't have to look hard; they'll proudly proclaim that. In the case of public sector unions, they'll often be on the clock--which means OUR dime. Take it a step further--the media. Look at any major media outlet. They constantly hire high-ranking people from administrations and/or campaigns. Anything that politicians come up with to "solve" the problem will have loopholes built in or rules intentionally omitted. It's the politicians and lawyers who will benefit the most. I believe that our greatest defense against all of this is to learn as much as you can and take nothing at face value. Term limits just changes the faces but it may be the most logical step in the right direction at this point, in my opinion. Steve