The Supreme Court Refuses To Hear A Case That Would've Driven You Crazy
Last week, we reported on the Nine's decision to hear a case entitled McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission this coming October. In it, an Alabaman G.O.P. donator is attempting to upend the limits of biennial contributions to candidates or committees from an individual -- a restriction that's about $123,600 right now. Of course, there's SuperPACs and all that to circumvent this but, still, the written law stands to be overturned by a post-Citizens-United Supreme Court.
However, not all hope is lost for common decency in campaign finance: yesterday afternoon, Mother Jones reported that the highest court in the land has declined to hear a plea (labeled as "Citizens United on Steroids") that's made its way up the judiciary ladder. The case is called Danielczyk v. United States and, if the Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff, it would've been the worst thing to happen to shadow political spending since the Koch Brothers.
In 2008, Mr. William Danielczyk and Mr. Eugene Biagi donated money to Hillary Clinton's Presidential run. For whatever the reason, they thought the private equity firm they worked for would reimburse them - except, instead, the Justice Department slammed them with corporate contribution charges. Arguing against them, the two businessmen pinned up Citizens United as proof that, logically speaking, direct corporate contributions are constitutional.
Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees... today, at least.