The Tenth Circuit will hear oral arguments in Riddle v Hickenlooper, 13-1108, on September 26, 2013, at 9 a.m., in Denver. This is the case that challenges unequal contribution limits in Colorado. Colorado law says an individual may donate $400 to a legislative candidate who is nominated in a primary, but only $200 to a legislative candidate who is nominated by convention (i.e., a typical minor party candidate), or by petition (i.e., an independent candidate), or a write-in candidate.
The U.S. District Court had upheld the unequal contribution limits, even though the U.S. Supreme Court in Davis v Federal Election Commission ruled that unequal contribution limits for all candidates for a particular office are unconstitutional.
This particular case was filed on behalf of Joelle Riddle, who wanted to donate $400 to Kathleen Curry, a write-in candidate in 2010. Curry was a viable candidate, who wanted to be on the ballot as an independent, but a restrictive Colorado ballot access law kept her off the ballot because she had too recently been a registered Democrat. She was the incumbent.
Can anyone make a credible case for limiting to $400 the amount of free speech that a corporate “person,” or even a flesh bearing person for that matter, can shell out to purcha…er, “support” a candidate for elected public office?
Congressional finance laws work the same way. It is $2600 per election (primary, runoff, or general). I don’t see how ‘Davis v FEC’ applies.
The real solution is to adopt Top 2 Open Primary. Kathleen Curry would have appeared on the primary ballot, and had she advanced to the general election, been eligible for contributions for both contests.
Ahhh…so “speech” can be discriminately curtailed depending on what office is being contested?
What part of the first amendment forms the basis for that determination?
Please reference specific language.
Barry,
Surely you understand the difference between federal and state offices. I also assume you are familiar with ‘Buckley v Valeo’.
Mumbo Jimbo,
Nonresponsive as usual when confronted with the illogic of your positions.
Surely you understand that if corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in support of a candidacy while individuals are constrained by arbitrary monetary limits set by law, that supposedly “free speech” is only truly unfettered for those with bigger checkbooks.
Never mind. Don’t answer. Just don’t ask me again what my “problem” is with free speech, OK, you magnificent Republican tool?
Barry,
You did not answer whether you were familiar with ‘Buckley v Valeo’.
You also did not indicate whether your are familiar with the difference between state and federal laws.