Supreme Court Won't Hear Campaign Finance Rules Challenge

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won't hear a Republican-backed challenge of federal campaign finance restrictions.

The court on Monday refused to hear an appeal by former Louisiana Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao and the Republican National Committee.

Cao wanted the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the $42,000 federal limit on what state and national parties could spend in 2010 in coordinated efforts on behalf of a candidate in his race. Currently, the state and national parties cannot consult with each other on money spent beyond that limit.

State party leaders have said can lead to duplicative or contradictory messages.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the campaign finance limit was constitutional.

Cao lost his seat last year to Democrat Cedric Richmond.

The case is Cao v. Federal Election Commission, 10-776.

Comments

[Captain Hindsight]

09:05 AM on 03/23/2011

Currently, the state and national parties cannot consult with each other on money spent beyond that limit.($42,000)

At least the SCOTUS seems to be making a little more sense than it exhibited in the Citizens United Case (which incomprehensibly went in favor of CORPORATE CITIZENS not the real flesh and blood citizens)

[mjcc1987]

08:43 AM on 03/23/2011

This is will most likely be deleted by AOL but here it goes....


This makes no sense, what exactly did Koch pay for? They want their money's worth now!

[charles847]

12:41 AM on 03/23/2011

Cao was elected during the period after katrina when a lot of residents in his district from New Orleans had not returned. His district is heavy democrat and he will never be elected from that district again.

[Howard Pearlman 13]

09:12 PM on 03/22/2011

Why would the Supreme Court want to take money and power away from the Corporations that make the Supreme Court's Relatives RICH ?

[mjcc1987]

08:44 AM on 03/23/2011

That's what the Koch brothers want to know. I mean, what did they pay for?

[Jesus WasaLiberal]

07:36 PM on 03/22/2011

of course they won't, because virginia thomas and friends say NO.

[lonewolfwisconsin]

04:54 PM on 03/22/2011

Of course the GOP wishes for no limits to political contributions and no transparancy. This is the toll they've used since 1980 to buy America so they can change it the way they wish, not the way it should naturally evolve. All of this over-reach will come back to bite them in 2012, and they will forfiet the House once again, and give the Dems 61 seats in the Senate. It is then that the Progessives will take over, and bring so many changes to America that it will no longer be a failed "Capitalist" nation, but a more secure nation, with the rich giving up 50% of their wealth back to the middle class from which they stole it.

[scorpioman]

07:40 PM on 03/22/2011

keep dreaming........it might happen.......

[nypapajoe]

04:34 PM on 03/22/2011

America the republicans politicians have not and will not ever concern themselves with the problems that confronts the common person on a daily basis! They are determined to undue all regulations that will in any way prevent the ultra rich and the corporations from maximizing their profits, period! Ask yourselves "what was the first Order of Business" when they got into office? Tax Breaks for the Rich! Not jobs! I blame them not for it was the majority of " Pissed Off" Americans that voted for these lobbyist of the rich, who have again set their sights on now destroying the employees of the public sector, who I might add are the back bone of this nation, pay their taxes in full and are huge majority! They have awaken a sleeping giant, who are now pissed off and ready for some pay back!

[Cw Fahringer]

04:04 PM on 03/22/2011

You can prostitute all of the politicians some of the time, and prostitute some of the politicians all the time, but you cannot prostitute all the politicians all the time. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts this will change. Unless this mortal blow is somehow undone, within ten years, every politician in this country will be a prostitute.

[Cw Fahringer]

03:49 PM on 03/22/2011

GOP wants to eliminate all limits on contribution and dont see Citizens United as going far enough. Why dont they just have auctions instead of elections. I guess its already happening.

[angrypancho]

02:59 PM on 03/22/2011

I kinda wish they would review the ruling. It'd give me another reason to argue that the Supreme Court is probably even more of a farce than Congress, and that's saying a lot.

[StopMakingSense2]

02:52 PM on 03/22/2011

Turn the organizations into corporations and then they are people with no limits... It's right there in the constitution... ?

[denise4925]

11:52 AM on 03/22/2011

Wow, that's surprising.

[ThrenodyNow]

11:11 AM on 03/22/2011

"State party leaders have said can lead to duplicative or contradictory messages."

Huh?

[den1953]

10:52 AM on 03/22/2011

We the People can't rely on the Supreme Court to balance the power in Washington now could we, that would give control back to the American People, all those Republican nominated Justices would have to explain to the powers that be why Corporations no longer can buy their elected officials!

[Dana1982]

10:49 AM on 03/22/2011

Corporations are a group of people with a common interest. They are no different than unions, or other special interest groups like the AARP. The court made the right decision.

[WeCanDoMore]

12:14 PM on 03/22/2011

Corporations have a sole interest in making the most money possible. That is their "common interest".

Unions protect the best interest of people. Unions are not just about money, note how they caved on day one in WI with all the financial concessions Walker asked of them. Unions want to protect America and it's people and have shown already they are ready to sacrifice for same.

Untrue with corpos, who keep shipping jobs overseas cause it's cheaper for them, keep getting robotics in their factories cause its cheaper fot them and leave Americans unemployed, and then have the gall to hire lobbyists to get legislators to promote the idea that Americans are unemployed because the are lazy,

There is a difference between a group of a few super wealthy people protecting the concept of massive $ as a bottom line, and people banding together so they can earn a livable wage under safe conditions.

If you insist on simplifying by saying we are all just groups of people, so as to make your point, you miss the greater point. Your group is in a position to tip the playing field. It's not fair and it will destroy masses and masses of human lives, and the wealthy few will remain status quo. Thats why we have unions in the first place. Pelase don't obfuscate the heart of the matter.

Wealthy are a minority in this country, btw.

[Dana1982]

01:31 PM on 03/22/2011

Corporations are a group of people with a common interest. Paper mills have people who have the common interest in making the best paper, steel makers have the common interest in making the best steel and so on.

Unions only have the interest in union members. They don't care about all people. And they do this for a fee.

I understand you would rather silence the opposing voice and you would like to use the force of government to deny others their rights. This was also the case before 1865 when a minority was silenced by the majority. It was wrong then, and it's wrong today.

[rosey7]

01:39 PM on 03/22/2011

WeCanDoMore, 400 people own 50% of the wealth in this country. I suppose middle class people think they might end up as one of the 800 or so who , in good time, will control 90% of the US's wealth. 300 million people here and 400 own 50% of the wealth. That's democracy to some. Bizarre as it sounds.

[rcwhite364]

02:14 PM on 03/22/2011

Do you realize none of your comments have any bearing whatsover to the article? SCOTUS refused to hear a case from a former Republican Representative who wanted the limits placed on coordination between state and national party organizations removed. This has nothing to do with corporations that 1.) are not people and 2.) have no "common interest" other than making a profit for its owners. They are not special interest groups; they are businesses.