Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today blasted a Supreme Court ruling that voided legal limits on contributions by individual donors to political campaigns.
“Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government,” Sanders said.
The ruling gives wealthy donors like the billionaires Charles and David Koch more power to influence elections. An earlier ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC resulted in a record $7 billion being spent in the 2012 election cycle, including at least $400 million by the Koch brothers alone.
“What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in?” Sanders asked. “To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with ‘freedom of speech’ is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process.”
At issue in the latest case was a limit on how much donors may give to all candidates and political organizations during a two-year federal election cycle. The cap now is $123,200. That includes a separate $48,600 limit on contributions to individual candidates during 2013 and 2014. A separate $2,600 limit on how much one individual may give to any specific candidate for Congress in any election is not directly at stake in this case.
The latest ruling comes on the heels of a disastrous 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, which threw out campaign funding laws that limited what wealthy individuals and corporations could spend on elections. Since that ruling, campaign spending by Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate, the Koch brothers and a handful of other billionaire families has fundamentally undermined American democracy.
Sanders has proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn that ruling and make clear preventing quid pro quo corruption is not the only reason we should regulate campaign finance. His amendment and a companion measure in the House by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) would make it clear that the right to vote and the ability to make campaign contributions and expenditures belong only to real people.
The amendment would effectively prevent corporations from bankrolling election campaigns. Congress and states would have specific authority to regulate campaign finances by, for example, limiting donations, requiring disclosure of donors or creating public-financing systems for campaigns.
Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments and is a self-described “democratic socialist” and has praised Scandinavian-style “social democracy”. ( Lisa Lerer (July 16, 2009). “Where’s the outrage over AIG bonuses?”. The Politico.
In an interview with The Nation on March 6, 2014, Sanders stated that he is “prepared to run for President of the United States” in 2016.
Clearly, he has an interest in keeping property owners from contributing to political candidates!
Funny how liberals never admit how much they benefit from large gifts too.
The exception, whom I supported (but I was only 12 then), was Eugene McCarthy who freely admitted he could not run against the estblishment Democrats in ’68 if he had not received five separate $100,000 donations from wealthy supporters.
Statists gonna state.
The biggest problem with McCutcheon is that there’s no explanation of how Buckley v. Valeo can still be constitutional, but the law at issue in McCutcheon isn’t.
Bernie Sanders would like to be in charge of telling all people how much they can give, how much they can earn, how much they pay in tax based on his own whims. He should look to eliminating laws accross the board that give privilege to government favored groups, something our government is rife with, and let the invisible hand of individual choice actually do its work. But if he did that, he could not decide who gets the money, who gives the money, and how much each of us can have. The individual languishes because his life is taken away from him. Meanwhile Sanders and his friends get richer (due to favors…even in Russia apparatchiks did better than the general population) and he basks in the knowledge he can force total strangers to do his will while fueling a general, and his own, “feeling” morally superiority.