Dan Winslow, a Republican candidate in the special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, has asked the Federal Election Commission whether he can accept a contribution of $5,200 from a Massachusetts married same-sex couple. If the couple were of opposite sex, this contribution would be legal. See this story. Thanks to the Center for Competitive Politics for the link.
Can anyone make a cogent, logical argument for so severely limiting individual contributions made directly to a political campaign while allowing unlimited Super PAC (“uncoordinated” – wink wink, nod nod) support of a campaign?
How is it that my “free speech” can be curtailed to a relatively paltry amount and regulated (made a matter of public record) while the “free speech” of anonymous donors, including unions, corporate “persons” and the super wealthy is virtually unfettered?
Anybody?
Its the “wink wink” part.
FEC is short for FECal matter.
#1 See the SCOTUS morons in Buckley v Valeo.
See the book – Sources of Our Liberties edited by Richard L. Perry (1959 – before SCOTUS went N-U-T-S in the 1960s).
Sorry – NO dollar amount in the 1st Amdt (as in the 7th Amdt – when 20 dollars was BIG cash).
Gee — is money needed for speech (traveling around), press, assemble, petitions for redress of grievances ??? Duh.
The New Age communist Donkeys (with their mini armies of usual suspect left wing profs and lawyers) are on the march and want to destroy freedom in the USA by any means necessary and available.