GOP seeks to end ban on some donation limits

Source: MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Republicans are making another run at overturning a ban on unlimited "soft money" contributions. Their Democratic rivals say it is an attempt to bring big money back to politics because the GOP can't keep up with President Barack Obama's fundraising machine.

The Republican National Committee is suing to overturn part of a ban on unlimited contributions passed by Congress in 2002 and upheld by the Supreme Court a year later.

The suit is against the Federal Elections Commission, which enforces the law, but the Democratic National Committee and House Democrats campaign chief Rep. Chris Van Hollen have asked the court to let them defend the law as well. The GOP is fighting to keep the Democrats out of the courtroom dispute.

The party positions are ironic, given how the law got its start. The law, known as McCain-Feingold after the senators who sponsored it, restricts donations by individuals to $28,500 per year to the political parties and prohibits the parties from accepting any corporate or labor union contributions.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29084885/

be limited?

we can give $28,500 to a political party, such as the DNC or RNC.

What they want is the ability to remove that cap to political parties. McCain couldn't raise money from the people, so he had to turn to the RNC to make up the difference to stay competitive.

how can they sue to have it over-turned then?

are they counting on the new set of thugs on the bench to vote with them?

ON EDIT: I read the rest of the article and yes, they are hoping that the new thugs will vote with them

Just require any Member of Congress who does to wear a NASCAR firesuit with the logos of his contributors embroidered on it.

if it also lists the amount

Wal-mart $1,000,000 (the million in red flashing neon lights)

Their big ones can't be tapped out already can they? So early in the year?? :rofl:

Refresh my memory; who was in the majority of both houses of Congress? Who was the president who signed the bill into law? Wasn't this part of the "permanent majority" strategy of one Karl Rove? And here we are, not even six years later, and the Republicans are desperately trying to unrig the game they rigged? How's that permanent majority thing workin' out fer ya?

legislate from the bench. Isn't that what they always try to say?

a clear violation of federal judicial code of
ethics that require justices avoid even the appearance
of partiality.

Grounds for impeachment of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and
Roberts, IMHO