Justices reject campaign finance appeal over corporate contributions
February 25th, 2013
10:29 AM ET
2 years ago

Justices reject campaign finance appeal over corporate contributions

Washington (CNN) – The congressional ban on direct campaign contributions to federal candidates by corporations will stay in place after the Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from a campaign supporter of Hillary Clinton.

The justices last week accepted for a review a separate appeal over individual donation limits. That case will be argued in the fall, with an expected ruling some months later.

The case denied Monday is Danielczyk v. United States (12-579).


Filed under: Campaign finance • Fundraising • Supreme Court
soundoff (7 Responses)
  1. Rudy NYC

    I find it oddly troubling that the SCOTUS would reject on case, but not the other.

    February 25, 2013 10:39 am at 10:39 am |
  2. Logic N LA

    We need to find a away to sleect judges that are not politically swayed.

    February 25, 2013 10:43 am at 10:43 am |
  3. Sniffit

    "I find it oddly troubling that the SCOTUS would reject on case, but not the other."

    It's hard to say. It's possible there's a nefarious plan afoot to try to open the floodgates in terms of indiviudal donations, but I wouldn't go there quite yet. There may also be an intent to uphold the limitations and just make sure there's a full decision written as to why they are constitutional (which they quite clearly are) in order to make the precedent clearer and more powerful for posterity. I have no doubt that blatantly politicized, self-serving, intellectually dishonest dillholes like Scalia would allow his political frustrations to cloud a decision on this, such that he would argue that eevn reasonable limitations are unconstitutional, but Kennedy and Roberts don't strike me as quite as willing to go that far. Thomas wil again just point at Scalia and say "what he said." Alito I'm not sure of on this one, but he's a rabid ideologue...the most rabid of the ideologues in the SCOTUS...so I am left assuming he'll finegle a way to try to help the GOP in order to futher his own ideology. My prediction: the conservatives don't go whole hog and, yet again, write a ruling that pretends to follow long-standing precedent while really turning it entirely on its head and quietly eviscerating it, such that bobbleheads will characterize it as a loosening of the restrictions or a broadening of the right to free speech, effectively giving them cover for having opened up the floodgates and allowing people to use their wealth to drown out the voices of everyone else.

    February 25, 2013 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  4. Rudy NYC

    Logic N LA wrote:

    We need to find a away to sleect judges that are not politically swayed.
    ---------------
    There's a rather simple solution. Take the big money out of politics so that it doesn't trickle down into the coutrs.

    February 25, 2013 11:21 am at 11:21 am |
  5. Thomas

    A very corrupted political system .

    The Magic Christian !

    February 25, 2013 11:58 am at 11:58 am |
  6. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    This case should be rolled into the other one about campaign contribution limits. There should be less money in politics because that would enable more people to get into politics. Maybe we could have more responsible leaders and member of Congress if there was less money involved in the average campaign.

    February 25, 2013 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm |
  7. Rick McDaniel

    Corporate money is always going to play a major role in American politics. Sad, but impossible to overcome, simply because there is no other adequate source of campaign funds.........other than the candidates own personal money, which they seldom spend.

    February 25, 2013 01:00 pm at 1:00 pm |