Quantcast

Our View: Citizens can reduce taint of money

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, April 7, 2014 11:00 pm

The recent Supreme Court decision to loosen further laws that limit fat-cat dollars in elections was hardly surprising. Since the Citizens United decision in 2010, it has been clear that to a majority of the current Supreme Court, money is speech. The First Amendment allows no limits on free speech, therefore individuals and groups can spend freely to elect the candidates of their choice. Or so goes the logic of the Supreme Court.

By itself, the recent McCutcheon decision is fairly narrow. It did not lift limits on individual donations — $5,200 during a two-year political cycle for federal election candidates ($2,600 per primary and general). What it did do, though, is eliminate the aggregate limit on how much an individual can donate to all candidates, parties and political action committees in a two-year election cycle. That had been capped at $123,200. Now, without a limit, billionaires — whether the Koch brothers or George Soros — can donate to as many congressional campaigns, for example, as they chose. On top of that, the donors can donate to political parties and PACs. The playing field is much wider.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can get complete access to the online edition for $2.49 a week. If you need help, please contact our office at 505-986-3010 You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 No Alias Commenters must use their real names.
  • 2 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 3 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. and please turn off caps lock.
  • 4 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Welcome to the discussion.

1 comment:

  • Pierce Knolls posted at 8:44 am on Tue, Apr 8, 2014.

    Mister Pierce Posts: 1688

    "...we can take our government back." - I'd be interested to know what percentage of the elected officials representing Santa Fe at the local, state, and federal level weren't endorsed by the New Mexican. The New Mexican clearly endorsed the president, both our senators, and this district's congressman. From whom, exactly, does the New Mexican want to take our government back?

    I'll believe that the New Mexican is truly concerned about the taint of too much money in politics when they turn up the pressure on our city council and brand new mayor to reform our municipal public campaign financing regulations.

     

Write us! We welcome opinions from the readers. Send either letters (150 words) or My Views (600 words) to letters@sfnewmexican.com.

You can write a letter once a month or one My View every three months. We require the letter writer's name, address and phone number to be considered for publication. We also encourage writers to include a photo of themselves.

Any questions? Call Letters Editor Jennifer West at 986-3063.

Today’s New Mexican, July 25, 2014

To view a replica of today's printed edition of The Santa Fe New Mexican, you must be a subscriber. Get complete access to the online edition, including the print replica, at our low rate of $2.49 a week. That's about the price of a cup of coffee. Or get online and home delivery of our print edition for $3.24. Click here for details.  

Advertisement