Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits! Time to set up some PACS and Corps!

If a corporation can now legally spend a 100 billion dollars on a political campaign (in the name of free speech), then why am I (as an Individual) limited to $2300?

Doesn't anyone else see that this is a perversion of the 1st Amendment?

Corporations are NOT PEOPLE! Only PEOPLE have rights. Good God in heaven- we've been reduced to slobbering idiots.

First, I would have to ask if you read the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold and if so, then have you actually read the Supreme Court decision on the Constitutionality of that piece of legislation?

I personally stand with the opinion of Dr. Ron Paul that Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to pass any type of campaign-finance reform legislation. Indeed, it moved far beyond its limitations and authority with the passage of McCain-Feingold and I personally applaud the High Court for the action it took today and that it is rare that I can make such statements.

The question should be therefore, does the Constitution confer any such authority to Congress, whether the legislation is considered a good or bad piece of legislation? Does Congress have the authority to regulate federal election campaigns or for that matter does it have the express authority to do any number of things that are not enumerated within the Constitution? The answer, of course, is no, it does not.

Concerning elections, the Constitution is very clear as to the extent of Congressional authority regarding elections: Article I, Section 4 specifically enumerates the authority of Congress as to the "times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives." Additionally, Article II, Section 1 limits Congress only to "determining the time of choosing the [presidential] electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."

Indeed, the Constitution was constructed in a manner which sought to effectively prevent Congress from legislating in such matters to promulgate possible Congressional influences, making elections more dependent upon the laws passed by Congress rather than the consent of the people. The idea was to ensure the independence of the electoral process from the various branches of government, particularly that of Congress itself.

Here are the words of Dr. Paul on the subject:

Last week the Senate narrowly passed the highly publicized McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. I certainly understand that many Americans are tired of the corruption in Washington, where special interest lobbies pursue their agendas at the expense (literally) of the nation's taxpayers. Everyone knows that politicians use federal spending to reward lobbies, certain constituencies, and favored individuals. However, we must recognize that the McCain bill places restrictions only on individuals, not politicians.
Politicians will continue to tax and spend, meaning they will continue to punish some productive Americans while rewarding others with federal largesse. The same vested special interests will not go away, and the same influence peddling will happen every day on Capitol Hill. The reason is very simple: when the federal government redistributes trillions of dollars from some Americans to others, countless special interests inevitably will fight for the money. The rise in corruption in Washington simply mirrors the rise in federal spending. The problem is not with campaigns, but rather with the steady shift from a relatively limited federal government to a virtually socialist system intent on huge redistributions of wealth.
We cannot forget that the Constitution grants Congress only limited enumerated powers, and no authority to regulate campaigns is provided. In fact, Article II expressly authorizes the regulation of elections, so the omission of any mention of campaigns is glaring. Questions have been raised about the constitutionality of campaign finance legislation based on the First amendment, but few seem to realize that Congress clearly lacks the constitutional power to enact such legislation.
Constitutional questions aside, the McCain bill simply will help entrenched powers retain their stranglehold on Washington. Incumbent politicians benefit when challengers cannot spend the amounts needed to unseat them.
Name recognition and incumbency are huge advantages in politics. Because contributions by individuals are limited, a challenger must find hundreds or thousands of donors to support a campaign. The incumbent can rely on a much larger base of people. This presents a tremendous obstacle for virtually any challenger candidate who lacks name recognition and elite social contacts. As a result, ordinary Americans rarely bother to run for office. Perversely, very rich Americans are more likely to enter politics because of federal limits on individual donors. Their private wealth frees them from the hard work of raising $1,000 from thousands of individuals. When the challenger spends as much as the incumbent, re-election rates are much lower. So wealthy candidates match the incumbent's spending and often succeed in winning.
The liberal mainstream media also benefit from campaign finance restrictions. When lobbies and individuals are limited in what they can give to campaigns and political parties, they instead will spend money on advertisements during election seasons. Media outlets relish the prospect of increased ad revenue. Although the McCain bill places restrictions just prior to elections on issue ads, which only implicitly support one party or candidate, the media know they will sell even more ads before the restriction period starts. Since the issue ad restrictions raise First amendment questions, the media also know that the Supreme Court likely will forbid such restrictions as unconstitutional. The end result is that mainstream media organizations will have more money and influence than ever before. The media will impact the outcomes of elections even more than they do today.
Grass roots organizations and third-party candidates especially suffer when contributions are limited. Such groups are prohibited from raising needed seed money from sympathetic wealthy donors interested in funding a new political movement. Millions of voters might be attracted to a third party, but they lose interest when their candidate garners very little publicity or is not on the ballot. It is virtually impossible for grass roots campaigns and new parties to match the established parties $1,000 at a time.
We need to get money out of government. Only then will money not be important in politics. Campaign finance laws will not make politicians more ethical, but they will make it harder for average Americans to influence Washington.

In another one of Dr. Paul's essay's on the subject, one of many I might add, he goes on to say: Outrageously, the new reform bill virtually outlaws criticism of incumbent politicians for 60 days before an election. Do you think citizens need to know about one prominent New York Senator's plan to confiscate firearms? Any gun rights group that speaks out between Labor Day and the November election- precisely the time when most Americans are becoming informed about the candidates and the issues- will be violating the law. Do you think voters need to know if a senior member of the important House International Relations committee puts his allegiance to the United Nations before that of his own country? An opponent making this point in a commercial during the 60-day period could end up in jail. Do we honestly think this kind of muzzle should be put on the American people?
The corruption inherent in our big-government political system is as repugnant to me as it is to you. Yet none of us should believe for one second that the parties in Washington intend to clean up the system and make themselves less corruptible. In truth, the legislation passed last week will only serve to deny a voice to average Americans, while ensuring the reelection of the fat cats. Name recognition and incumbency are huge advantages in politics. Incumbent politicians benefit when challengers cannot raise or spend the amounts needed to unseat them.

Thus, I feel that we have not been sold out by the High Court, but finally have had a degree of our Rights restored, something that the Leftist oppose, including those Leftist who set on the Bench of the Supreme Court. I can guarantee you that the "Head Marxist" in the Whitehouse and his Comrades will be equally as appalled at the High Court's decision as some here on the DP seem to strangely be. Hmmmm....again, Dr. Paul is correct on yet another issue...

Seems like a good thing to me.

Yes, some PAC's would be in order.

.