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

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
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:


© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
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

Rep. Issa: WH Fence-Jumper Could Have Easily Been Stopped

Tuesday, 30 Sep 2014 17:51 PM

By using easily available technology, the Secret Service could have prevented the Sept. 19 incident in which a man jumpe . . .

First Case of Ebola Diagnosed in US: Health Officials

Tuesday, 30 Sep 2014 16:58 PM

The United States has diagnosed its first case of the deadly Ebola virus, a man who became infected in Liberia and trave . . .

Gen. Hayden: Obama's Lack of Participation on Intel Problematic

Tuesday, 30 Sep 2014 16:22 PM

President Barack Obama has attended only 42.1 percent of his daily intelligence briefings , and that could be dangerous  . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

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