A Federal Court Just Threatened Citizens United

[DonViejo]

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington ruled 11-0 that a ban on federal campaign contributions by individuals who contract with the government is constitutional. After a wave of controversial decisions by Supreme Court that have unleashed a flood of big money into politics, this appeals court decision sends a clear message: Sometimes, more money in politics can be a very bad thing.

Americans agree. According to a poll from the New York Times, some 85 percent of the American people believe that the way political campaigns are funded needs either "fundamental changes" (39 percent) or "a complete rebuild" (46 percent).

Money has become central to American politics. Spending in the 2016 presidential election alone could top $4 billion, with the winning candidate having to raise $1.5 billion.

How did we get into this mess? In 1974, after the Watergate scandal brought down Nixon, Congress established limits on how much people could give and how much politicians could spend on their campaigns, and mandated disclosure to ensure that regular citizens could “follow the money.”

more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/federal-court-citizens-united

[donnasgirl]

1. I am voting for the Candidate who i consider broke

Go Mr Sanders Go.

[JDPriestly]

7. I don't want to ever here a member of the Democratic Party local leadership tell me that

he/she backs a certain candidate because that candidate is the only one that can raise the money to run. That's not politics. That's Tammany Hall. That's institutional bribery. That's not democratic. That's elections for sale.

[abelenkpe]

8. +1000 nt

[PatrynXX]

11. Green Party

I seemed to have started something stating that I thought the Green Party is being funded by the Koch Brothers. and I did vote Green once. but having Jill claim Bernie is another Obama (notice she didn't say Barack's first name. ) grrrrr is like saying out loud who is funding you.

[Eleanors38]

14. Yep. You don't need the most $ to win, only enough. nt

[donnasgirl]

17. JD

That is the very reason my family is backing Bernie Sanders so strongly, we want big money out of politics and do not want a Candidate who needs money to win, we want them to run on their record and so far that is Mr Sanders.

[Thespian2]

22. Ab-so-lutely!!!

Time to change the systems that produce such un-democratic results...I will not vote for a candidate simply because she raises tons of money...

[passiveporcupine]

23. Yep

[malthaussen]

2. Gee, do they think there might be a conflict of interest there?

Perish and forfend!

-- Mal

[irisblue]

3. the lower courts telling SCOTUS time for a review of their decision?

wow, how many times has that happened in American jurisprudence? Plessy v Ferguson I know, but others?
teach me please

[FBaggins]

9. Not really. This doesn't conflict with the prior ruling

This ruling says that it's constitutional to restrict a person (presumably including "corporate persons&quot from making direct contributions if they contract with the government... but it didn't say that they can't spend money on politics in general (or advocate for their own issues).

It doesn't touch on the core issues of the Citizens United ruling and I doubt that the USSC will even take up the issue on appeal.

[meow2u3]

4. K & R for some hope

[libdem4life]

5. Progress.

[JDPriestly]

6. K&R.

[hifiguy]

10. An 11-0 en banc ruling?

Whoa, that is a rare bird. Correctly decided as well.

[former9thward]

12. This case had nothing to do with Citizens United.

Wagner v. Federal Election Commission is about a ban which prohibits federal contractors from making federal campaign contributions. This is an old law which was enacted in 1940.

The OP is an article written by a political science professor. He might be great at political science but not at law.

[JDPriestly]

15. Thanks. Is that law really enforced?

What company has the contract for processing what we used to call food stamps? I believe it is now the food assistance program? Does that company or its employees contribute to federal campaigns?

Here is the answer for at least 2010 and 2011.

This week’s credit check: A record 43.6 million Americans are using food stamps. JPMorgan’s segment that makes food stamp debit cards made $5.47 billion in net revenue in 2010.

You might think that if you’re on food stamps, big banks won’t be very interested in you. What could they possibly want with someone who’s struggling just to put food on the table? But it turns out that you’re actually part of a profitable business for big bank JPMorgan. While the money to pay for the stamps comes from the government, the technology to access it lies in private hands. Food stamps used to be literally stamps — that is, pieces of paper — but in this day and age paper is so old fashioned. Now you get your food stamps with a debit card, and JPMorgan knows all about creating plastic credit products.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/food-stamps-jpmorgan-banking-industry-profit-misery

But JP Morgan employees donated big-time to Romney's campaign.

JPMorgan Chase & Co made big donations to U.S. presidential campaigns, particularly Mitt Romney's, as it lobbied against financial regulations, according to a Reuters analysis of campaign financial reports on Friday.

JPMorgan Chairman and Chief Executive Jamie Dimon, who has been an ally of President Barack Obama, parlayed his bank's reputation as a white knight during the financial crisis into the position of champion of a beleaguered industry fighting against what it decries as excessive regulation.

But a $2 billion trading loss has diminished his credibility and has already provoked calls to get tougher on big banks. Dimon has been particularly critical of the so-called Volcker rule that proposes to ban proprietary trading by such institutions.

Romney's campaign raised $358,219 from employees of JPMorgan and its affiliates through the end of March and the Republican National Committee raised an additional $39,758 from JPMorgan employees and the company's Political Action Committee.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/us-jpmorgan-donations-idUSBRE84A1A020120511

If campaign donations are free speech under Citizens United and earlier decisions, then would it be legal to enforce the 1940 law against employees of government contractors or even the contractors themselves?

[former9thward]

16. As you point out this law is on the books but

in reality is not really enforced. The individuals claim they are donating personally and it has nothing to do with the company they work for. Its BS but legal.

[red dog 1]

13. K&R...Thanks for posting, DonViejo

Using the Talkingpintsmemo article you posted here as my source, I just posted the following in "Good Reads"

"What President Obama Can Do About Campaign Finance Reform Without Congressional Approval"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016126873

[cstanleytech]

18. Simple solution, abolish anomymous donations and make it illegal to funnel money

through a 3rd party including PACs and just require complete disclosure on whos donating the money.
Requiring transparency after all isnt unconstitutional is it?

[AZ Progressive]

19. Any real Christian should already know that money is dangerous and greed is evil

And giving control of the country to the greedaholics and the lords of greed is a recipe for disaster and ruin.

[rhett o rick]

20. k & r. Thanks for posting. nm

[Dont call me Shirley]

21. Money is not speech, corporations are not people. Money is an economic tool, corporations are

a business comprised of a group of people sanctioned by the State.

We need a Constitutional Amendment stating this.

This Federal Court took a baby step.

[nikto]

26. Personally, I rather like Ambrose Bierce's definitions of "money" and "corporation"

MONEY, n. A blessing that is of no advantage to us excepting when we part with it.
An evidence of culture and a passport to polite society. Supportable property.


CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

[Dont call me Shirley]

32. Spot on! Thanks, nikto!

[nikto]

34. Thanks!

[Enthusiast]

24. Kicked

and recommended a whole bunch!

[skepticscott]

25. So what does that have to do with Citizens United?

That decision was not about campaign contributions.

Why do so many people post about that decision without knowing jack shit about it? Seriously.

[Peace Patriot]

27. We need a Constitutional Amendment banning all private money in political campaigns.

Enough! The end! No more! Fini!

[L0oniX]

31. How about an citizen oversight commitee that keeps an eye out for paybacks for campaign money.

[Peace Patriot]

33. This Supreme Court will outlaw any such effort.

Nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment can correct this HORRIBLE crisis of our bought-and-paid for politicians.

But we first have to restore vote counting to the public venue. Only then--only when we have banned e-vote tabulation using 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by private, rightwing-tied corporations, with no audit (half the states) or a miserably inadequate audit--can we even begin to formulate the other reforms that are so desperately needed.

Restoring vote counting to the public venue can be a county-by-county, state-by-state transformation. Once we have elected leaders who can prove that they were really elected (none of them can now--none!), then we can start dealing with the filthy money, as we start getting true representatives of the people in state legislatures, state houses and Congress.

However, the Supreme Court has made it impossible to reform campaign finance EVEN THEN--EVEN when the people demand it and the peoples' true representatives write reform laws. The only thing that can overrule the Supreme Court is a Constitutional Amendment.

And we shouldn't mess around with oversight committees, various limits, various disclosure laws and so on. They are a waste of time with this Supreme Court in power. What is needed is a simple PRINCIPLE. No more private money in political campaigns. End of story. And it has to become part of the Constitution.

[Dustlawyer]

28. Bernie, with millions of us behind him can fix this problem!!!

No other candidate has taken this issue on. Just on this issue alone people should support him!

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

29. Could we actually have hope?

It's our only hope, imo, to really make a change!

[L0oniX]

30. Who would have ever thought that campaign money = payback favors? Wow ...unbelievable.