Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling

Senate Democrats are already planning to respond. | AP Photo

Democratic lawmakers and campaign finance reform advocates quickly bashed Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision to strike down total limits on individual campaign contributions, warning of future corruption in elections.

Meanwhile, Republicans largely cheered the ruling from the narrowly divided court, which found it unconstitutional to impose caps on the aggregate amounts that one person can donate to campaigns, parties and political action committees.

Continue Reading

Calling himself “all for freedom,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday commended the ruling, saying “donors ought to have the freedom to give what they want to give.” And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, also praised the decision.

(Also on POLITICO: Supreme Court strikes down aggregate campaign giving limits)

“Let me be clear for all those who would criticize the decision: It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party,” McConnell said Wednesday. “It just respects the constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support.”

Senate Democrats, who control the chamber, are already planning to respond. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he will hold a hearing on the impact of the McCutcheon decision and other rulings from the high court that he says “have eviscerated our campaign finance laws.”

Meanwhile, Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he introduced legislation intended to make donations more transparent by requiring all contributions of $ 1,000 or more to be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission within 48 hours. A campaign bill in the House will be introduced by Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas).

(Also on POLITICO: Dems lead Twitter charge against ruling)

“This in itself is a small step, but another step on the road to ruination,” said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat. “It could lead to interpretations of the law that would result in the end of any fairness in the political system as we know it.”

Responding to the decision, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked his favorite boogeymen: the Koch brothers.

“The Supreme Court today just accentuated what they did on Citizens United, which is a decision that is one of the worst decisions in the history of that court,” Reid said during a press conference on raising the minimum wage. “All it does is take away people’s rights because, as you know, the Koch brothers are trying to buy America.”

Over in the House, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said he plans to introduce legislation that will “fully reverse this latest Supreme Court blunder.” And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called for passage of legislation sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) that is meant to amplify small-dollars donations to congressional candidates.

“Our founders risked their lives, their liberty and their sacred honor to create a democracy — a government of the many, not a government of the money,” Pelosi said in a statement. “After misguided and destructive court decisions in McCutcheon and Citizens United, it is clear that Congress must act swiftly to restore fairness to our campaign finance system.”

Current federal law limits the total amount an individual can give to $ 48,600 for candidates and $ 74,600 in contributions to PACs and party committees in each two-year cycle. That’s separate from the $ 2,600 limit on donations to a single candidate and the $ 32,400 cap on donations to parties.

While Democrats publicly criticized the decision, they were far more positive in private. One top Hill Democrat suggested Democrats had a larger number of donors, and they can now go back and ask these supporters for even more money.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the author of the landmark 2002 McCain-Feingold law that clamped down on soft-money contributions, said he was “disappointed” by Wednesday’s ruling — calling it the latest move from justices to “dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of campaign finance law.”

“I predict that as a result of recent court decisions, there will be scandals involving corrupt public officials and unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions that will force the system to be reformed once again,” McCain said.

Burgess Everett, Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan contributed to this report.

POLITICO – Congress

Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling

VIDEO: The abortion battle beyond Roe v. Wade

More than 40 years after the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe vs. Wade decision, the fight over abortion is back in the political spotlight. This time, it’s state and federal governments getting involved.

Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.

To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.

VIDEO: The abortion battle beyond Roe v. Wade

SCOTUS strikes down key voting rights provision

The 5-4 ruling split the court along ideological lines. | AP Photo

The Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, ruling unconstitutional a provision of the landmark civil rights legislation used to promote the political power of minority voters across large swaths of the southern United States for nearly four decades.

In a 5-4 ruling that split the court along ideological lines, the court ended a requirement that some or all areas in 15 states get advance approval from the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges for all changes to voting laws, procedures and even polling place locations.

Continue Reading

Breaking news: Voting Rights Act

The court’s conservative majority said that when Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 it did not have sufficient basis to re-adopt a formula that is essentially the same as the one used when the law was first passed in 1965.

”Congress — if it is to divide the States — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

(Also on POLITICO: Supreme Court Voting Rights Act ruling)

Lawmakers “reenacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts, having no logical relationship to the present day,” Roberts wrote. Despite “thousands of pages of evidence” Congress accumulated in 2006, “we cannot pretend that we are reviewing an updated statute or try our hand at updating the statute ourselves, based on the new record compiled by Congress.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court’s three other liberals, complained that the majority ignored significant evidence of continuing racial discrimination and efforts to interfere with the rights of minority voters.

Roberts argued that Congress essentially punted in 2006, finding it politically inconvenient to tinker with a formula that sweeps in most states in the deep South as well as Alaska, Arizona, parts of New York City, and various other counties and towns.

(PHOTOS: Who’s who on the Supreme Court)

“We are not ignoring the record; we are simply recognizing that it played no role in shaping the statutory formula before us today,” the chief justice wrote.

Those challenging the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance provision, known as Section 5, argued that it unfairly punishes the covered states and communities by singling them out for special requirements based on evidence of racial discrimination in 1965 rather than the present day. The challengers also claimed that the rule placed costly and cumbersome burdens on the covered jurisdictions by requiring that changes as minor as a shift in polling places be submitted to Washington for approval.

Supporters of keeping the law intact urged the justices to respect Congress’s judgment that the preclearance procedure was still needed to respond to various tactics that have been used to limit the voting power of African Americans and other minorities.

In 2006, the Senate backed reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in a unanimous 98-0 vote. The House signed on by a lopsided margin of 390-to-33. President George W. Bush, flanked by civil rights leaders, held a Rose Garden ceremony to sign the bill, which extended the preclearance rule through 2031.

(PHOTOS: 21 landmark SCOTUS rulings)

In last fall’s election, the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance rule played a central role in derailing so-called Voter ID legislation in several of the states where it was passed. Federal courts blocked such a measure in Texas and effectively postponed such legislation from taking effect in South Carolina. A Mississippi law was blocked by the Justice Department.

POLITICO – TOP Stories

SCOTUS strikes down key voting rights provision

SCOTUS strikes down key voting rights provision

The 5-4 ruling split the court along ideological lines. | AP Photo

The Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act, ruling unconstitutional a provision of the landmark civil rights legislation used to promote the political power of minority voters across large swaths of the southern United States for nearly four decades.

In a 5-4 ruling that split the court along ideological lines, the court ended a requirement that some or all areas in 15 states get advance approval from the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges for all changes to voting laws, procedures and even polling place locations.

Continue Reading

Breaking news: Voting Rights Act

The court’s conservative majority said that when Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 it did not have sufficient basis to re-adopt a formula that is essentially the same as the one used when the law was first passed in 1965.

”Congress — if it is to divide the States — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

(Also on POLITICO: Supreme Court Voting Rights Act ruling)

Lawmakers “reenacted a formula based on 40-year-old facts, having no logical relationship to the present day,” Roberts wrote. Despite “thousands of pages of evidence” Congress accumulated in 2006, “we cannot pretend that we are reviewing an updated statute or try our hand at updating the statute ourselves, based on the new record compiled by Congress.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court’s three other liberals, complained that the majority ignored significant evidence of continuing racial discrimination and efforts to interfere with the rights of minority voters.

Roberts argued that Congress essentially punted in 2006, finding it politically inconvenient to tinker with a formula that sweeps in most states in the deep South as well as Alaska, Arizona, parts of New York City, and various other counties and towns.

(PHOTOS: Who’s who on the Supreme Court)

“We are not ignoring the record; we are simply recognizing that it played no role in shaping the statutory formula before us today,” the chief justice wrote.

Those challenging the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance provision, known as Section 5, argued that it unfairly punishes the covered states and communities by singling them out for special requirements based on evidence of racial discrimination in 1965 rather than the present day. The challengers also claimed that the rule placed costly and cumbersome burdens on the covered jurisdictions by requiring that changes as minor as a shift in polling places be submitted to Washington for approval.

Supporters of keeping the law intact urged the justices to respect Congress’s judgment that the preclearance procedure was still needed to respond to various tactics that have been used to limit the voting power of African Americans and other minorities.

In 2006, the Senate backed reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in a unanimous 98-0 vote. The House signed on by a lopsided margin of 390-to-33. President George W. Bush, flanked by civil rights leaders, held a Rose Garden ceremony to sign the bill, which extended the preclearance rule through 2031.

(PHOTOS: 21 landmark SCOTUS rulings)

In last fall’s election, the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance rule played a central role in derailing so-called Voter ID legislation in several of the states where it was passed. Federal courts blocked such a measure in Texas and effectively postponed such legislation from taking effect in South Carolina. A Mississippi law was blocked by the Justice Department.

POLITICO – TOP Stories

SCOTUS strikes down key voting rights provision

VIDEO: Supreme Court Says DOMA Might Violate States" Rights

Justice Anthony Kennedy, widely seen as a “swing vote” in the case, saw a conflict between the federal law and state laws that permit gay marriage.

Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.

To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.

VIDEO: Supreme Court Says DOMA Might Violate States" Rights

VIDEO: State of Our Unions: Arguments have been made — now what?

The Post’s Chris Cillizza hosts the final Google Hangout on marriage in America. He is joined a group of legal experts, including The Post’s SCOTUS reporter Bob Barnes to break down the arguements behind the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases.

Thanks for checking us out. Please take a look at the rest of our videos and articles.

To stay in the loop, bookmark our homepage.

VIDEO: State of Our Unions: Arguments have been made — now what?