Friday, September 27, 2013

Political Bribery, Right at Your Fingertips (McCutcheon)

The Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC could pump even more money into US elections. If McCutcheon and company get their way, special interest will be able to spend millions in direct political contributions and corrupt our government even further.

With McCutcheon, you can reach out and bribe any government official you wish to get the policies you want. Take control of the government: McCutcheon lets you spend as much money as you want bribing members of Congress so you can take full control of, not only your life, but everyone else’s.

Speech used to be free, now McCutcheon lets you buy as much as you can strings attached.

Introducing AnyTimeBribes™ --- send text laws from your cell phone 24/7 directly to your favorite members of Congress. Your power won't be capped or restricted in any way. Who knows how far your political influence will go --- with McCutcheon, even President Obama might take your calls.

Choose how much bribery is right for you. Plans start at $123,200* --- AnyTimeBribes™ and Free NSA Spying are included with every plan --- Payments are transferred instantly.)

* Three years after endorsing legalized bribery through the Citizens United ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in another case that could, incredibly enough, pump even more money into future elections. The plaintiffs in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) are seeking the outright elimination of the $123,200 “aggregate limit” on how much one donor may give to candidates, political parties and PACs each election cycle. Sign the petition:

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, set to be argued on Oct. 8, 2013


  1. The Center for Public Integrity: Supreme Court plaintiff McCutcheon exceeded campaign contribution limit

  2. Editorial Board, New York Times: "Politicians for Sale"

    On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which an Alabama businessman challenges the constitutionality of the overall cap on contributions an individual may make directly to federal candidates, party committees and political action committees in each two-year election cycle.

    The very wealthiest Americans already have disproportionate influence: in the 2012 election, 1,219 donors were responsible for giving $155 million to federal races.

    The nation’s founders understood the threat of corruption in politics and were preoccupied with combating it. The government should be dependent on “the great body of the people,” James Madison wrote, and not “an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.”

    If the Supreme Court is going to help protect American politics from becoming little more than “a disagreement among rich people,” as one observer put it, it should follow its own precedent and uphold the overall contribution limit.