It's the super-pacs and other dark-money schemes that funnel tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns that are supposedly not coordinated with the candidates themselves.Not just "supposedly." People have gone to jail for coordinating independent expenditures with official campaign organizations.One example can be found in Act One of This American Life episode 463, found at this link: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/463/m... This flood of money permitted by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision…Had the Supreme not overturned McCain–Feingold, spending by Adelson and Soros would NOT have been affected. The McCain–Feingold Act does not regulate spending by individuals.The Citizens United decision affected only spending by corporations and unions. Given the wording of the first amendment, I don't really see any way to change this without a constitutional amendment.FWIW, I actually favor an amendment that would limit spending to qualified electors. By that I mean that only individuals could contribute to campaigns, and then only to campaigns in which they are permitted to vote. So no rich Californians donating to a Senate race in Massachusetts, and no wealthy Utah Mormons contributing money to fight gay marriage in California.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M