High Court Backs U.S. Ban on ‘Soft Money’ Donations

[cal04]

Source: Bloomberg

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican challenge to the centerpiece of the 2002 campaign finance overhaul, upholding the law’s ban on unregulated “soft money” contributions to political parties.

Five months after striking down federal limits on corporate campaign spending, the justices rejected free-speech arguments against separate contribution restrictions that apply to businesses, unions and individuals. The court issued no opinion, instead summarily upholding a lower court ruling.

The decision marks a rare Supreme Court victory for supporters of campaign spending regulations. Although Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy said they would have scheduled arguments, they were unable to persuade the two swing justices on campaign finance questions -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- to join them.

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-29/high-court-backs-u-s-ban-on-soft-money-donations.html

---

High Court Reaffirms 'Soft Money' Ban
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=11042051

[closeupready]

1. Good. Maybe there is hope for cleaning up our crooked, corrupt Congress,

and their corrupt ways.

[louis-t]

2. Republicans will never NOT be corrupt.

Their way of thinking depends on it. The reason Republicans are saying "we want our country back"? They haven't finished looting it yet.

[pscot]

3. Maybe lobbying the court pays off?

Could it be that Roberts and Alito didn't like being called out by the pres in front of Congress and a national audience?

[hvn_nbr_2]

7. Lobbying?

Or telling the world what irrational dishonest radical activist corporatist thieves-in-black-robes they are?

I think we really agree. I'm probably just picking at words.

[pscot]

9. Not in the strict sense of lobbying

More like working the refs. I think Alito was surprised to be called out publicly. And that weepy wife of his probably went into hysterics.

[w4rma]

4. Does this mean that a single big business is restricted to only donating $2000 or so to a candidate?

It seems to me that this is the case.

[rockymountaindem]

5. No, because I think they can still run their own ads they pay for themselves

Which is to say that if me and four of my extremely rich CEO buddies want to do something like this, we could create our own "consulting" firm with our own money and then use it to run ads if we wish. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[unblock]

6. how insanely right-wing is this court if roberts and alito are "swing votes" on just about anything.

[florida08]

8. slimy goppers

trying to get it in before mid term elections.

Republicans said they wanted to use donations for party-building activities, rather than for support of particular federal candidates, eliminating any risk of quid pro quo corruption HAHAHA