Last year on the Colbert Report, CNN legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, made rather frightening predictions about what the Court would do in the coming years. This week, the Supreme Court decided to hear a case challenging limits to what a person can contribute to candidates and Parties over the course of two years.
Via The Colbert Report, list to Toobin’s predictions around the 4:15 mark:
The case that the Court has decide to take up, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, argues that the limit on what individuals are allowed to give candidates ($46,200 per two-year cycle) and parties and PACs ($70,800 per two-year cycle) is an unconstitutional violation of the individual donor’s free speech rights. Will this become Buckley v Valeo on steroids?
USA Today reports:
Lawyers for Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman and a GOP activist, argue those limits violate donor’s free-speech rights and severely restrict the ability of candidates and parties to compete in an age of free-for-all spending by super PACs and political non-profit groups
“In a rational universe, you wouldn’t want candidate and parties to become bit players in elections,” said Jim Bopp, the lead counsel in the McCutcheon case and an architect of the legal challenge that led to the Court’s Citizens United decision. “You want their voices to be heard.”
On the progressive blog, Crooks and Liars, blogger karoli promoted disclosure of contributions, but added that an “actual solution” would be an amendment to the Constitution. With the Court, it seems, hell-bent on making this the United Corporate Plutocracy of America, a people’s movement to amend the Constitution is the only solution that would reverse decades of bad, undemocratic SCOTUS decisions.
Update: A petition has been created by RepresentUs which states: “We The People demand that you use your power to preserve the few election-spending laws still in place. Stop “Citizens United, Round 2: McCutcheon v. FEC.” You can sign it here.