Tags: supreme court | john paul stevens | campaign | finance | ruling | donors

Ex-Justice Stevens: Unlimited Donations Threaten Democracy

Image: Ex-Justice Stevens: Unlimited Donations Threaten Democracy

Monday, 21 Apr 2014 07:05 PM

By Sandy Fitzgerald

The Supreme Court's decision to allow political donations to an unlimited number of federal candidates was a mistake, retired Justice John Paul Stevens says, adding the court decided "the voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate."

Stevens, who retired in 2010, told The New York Times that there is a flaw in the campaign finance ruling, and he wants a constitutional amendment to address what he calls a threat to U.S. democracy caused by the influence of money in politics.

While Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. started his opinion in the campaign finance case by saying that "there is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders," Stevens disagrees.

"The first sentence here," he said, "is not really about what the case is about."

In the case, Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon contributed to 15 candidates in the 2012 election and sued so he could donate to 12 more, though none was running in Alabama.

"The opinion is all about a case where the issue was electing somebody else's representatives," Stevens said. "The opinion has the merit of being faithful to the notion that money is speech and that out-of-district money has the same First Amendment protection as in-district money."

Stevens' proposed amendment is one of six he puts forth in his new book, "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution," in which he has chapters on gun control, the death penalty, gerrymandering, and state sovereignty, each concluding with a proposed amendment.

But Stevens was hesitant with The Times on whether his campaign finance amendment would allow the government to prohibit newspapers from spending money to publish editorials endorsing candidates, or, in theory, possibly ban books urging the election of political candidates.

"Perhaps you could put a limit on the times of publication or something," he said. "You certainly couldn't totally prohibit writing a book."

Related Stories:


© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

US Official: Paris Market Terrorist Had Camera to Video Attack

Friday, 30 Jan 2015 23:05 PM

Amedy Coulibaly, the terrorist who killed four people as part of terrorism attacks that rocked Paris earlier this month, . . .

Donald Trump: 'I Will Take Full Credit' for Romney Dropping Out

Friday, 30 Jan 2015 22:11 PM

A week ago, just before and during the Iowa Freedom Summit, real estate mogul Donald Trump was quick to call out two-tim . . .

Report: Hezbollah Tunnels May Make Gaza's Look Like 'Child's Game'

Friday, 30 Jan 2015 21:58 PM

After uncovering a Hamas underground tunnel network in last summer's Gaza war, the Israeli military has turned its atten . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved