U.S. Supreme Court affirms prosecution super PAC donors using reasonable person test

Check out this article on how the reasonable person test still applies to campaign contributions.

http://www.campaignsandelections.co...why-the-high-court-deserves-some-credit.thtml

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeals of groups claiming they didn't have to follow the laws.

Courts confirm it is not possible to claim clear campaign ads are okay since they lacked "magic words" or were not "expressed advocacy". These ads fail the reasonable person test.

A reasonable person looking at excessive contributions to a super PAC clearly understands what the money is given for. This makes it a campaign contribution as if given directly and subject to limits.

This isn't a "rant". Rants are not backed up with 150 page lawsuits filed in U.S. Federal Court that now sit in front of a 3-judge panel.

1:12-cv-00004 Maise v. Political Action Committees-Class I et al
Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, presiding

Who are you going to believe?
.....A super PAC asking you for money and telling you it is okay? or
.....Almost every reasonably sane person in this country?

I know a bit about this subject. I wrote that lawsuit and am the Plaintiff that seeks to take all super PACs and their donors to Court in one tidy class action suit.

See you in court.

Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff

 

The whole separation of super PACs from candidates is a joke. A little logistical hurdle hardly more than a play on words.

Best of luck on the case.

 

hope you win, be a nice victory for America

 

We should not have Super PACS, nor PACS of any kind. There should be a limit on how much can be spent on any election, proportionate to the position. Then perhaps there wouldn't be mud slinging because they wouldn't waste their money on something as lame as that.

 

I hate the concept and think there ought to be 100% transparency in regards to any monies paid to politicians. My only concern is if these are abolished, the only people who can run for president are the uber wealthy who can pay for it themselves.

 

As opposed to what? The scenario where the uber wealthy can pay for someone else? I dislike the idea of elections being turned into a game of chess between the uber wealthy with a 10,000,000 dollar buy-in, with the candidates and general populous being used as pawns. But I guess there's nothing really new with that, even in the old system. The new one is just more blatant about it.

 

That's fine, so long as it's 100% transparent and I can see who is buying who. Neither is optimal frankly, but given how much is at stake I don't see how your going to get the money out of it.

Agreed, the idea that a candidate is losing support and their donations are plummeting but they can continue to run ads and finance their campaign out of their own pocket creates a massive distortion.

 

Ted Kennedy, who helped drive the Federal Election Campaign Act, specifically helped incorporate limits on personal money that could be donated. This is despite the fact he came from a very wealthy family that could spend on campaigns. Currently it isn't the candidate alone that can spend unlimited, it includes several members of his family.

I agree this is a problem especially when candidates can go and make speaking engagements that earn massive amounts of money for just a short talk.

Part one of shutting down this loop hole is to prevent money flowing to candidates from groups and individuals that is claimed as income but really intended for campaigning.

Part two requires a deeper analysis and challenge to the rules that changed and allowed candidates to spend from own and family funds. That isn't part of this initial suit.

Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff