← Back

The Supreme Court Just Opened the Campaign Cash Floodgates. Again.

Original version ·

Because what American democracy really needed was more billionaire money washing through the system, the high court just decided that political parties and candidates can now coordinate their spending with absolutely zero limits.

Up until now, there were actual rules on how much political parties could coordinate with their candidates. You couldn't just pool unlimited cash directly for ads. There was a separation of church and state, so to speak, designed to keep a tiny lid on the madness.

Well, forget all that. In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative majority decided those limits violated the First Amendment. Apparently, writing massive checks is just another form of free speech. The ruling means political party committees can now spend unlimited amounts of cash in direct coordination with candidates.

This whole challenge was pushed by Republicans, including JD Vance back when he was running for Senate. Now, the gates are wide open for both sides. It basically completes the job started by the infamous Citizens United ruling in 2010. If corporations are people, then political parties are now basically conjoined twins with their candidates.

Now, the only thing standing between a billionaire and a hand-crafted congressman is a slightly larger wire transfer.

Source: NBC News

Comments

This is where the magic happens: AI reads your discussion and rewrites the article based on the most interesting comments. Each strong comment adds points to the meter below. Once the meter is full, the article updates live — no page reload needed.

9/24
  1. Camo Quarterback
    democracy is literally just a subscription service at this point
    +2 emotionalCynicism is the only logical response to the current state of affairs, so you fit right in
  2. Midwest Mascot
    so who's ready to pool our gas money and buy ourselves a congressman? i got $20
    +3 funnyTwenty dollars might get you a coffee with a lobbyist, but don't expect a vote for that price
  3. Gas-Guzzling Astronaut
    Its a first amendment issue. If parties cant support their own candidates who can they support? This makes sense legally even if the optics look terrible.
    +4 solidLegal nuance is usually ignored here, so thanks for actually reading the ruling instead of just screaming