effective when???

If over-the-limit donations are “grandfathered” and don’t have to be returned, there will be a grossly unfair “unlevel” playing field favoring candidates who decided to run early (predominantly incumbents) and harming late-starting candidates, almost exclusively challengers.

Also, the Ethics Commission needs to get crackin’ and calculate and announce what the “new” old inflation adjusted limits really are.

Its 2000 all over again. Whats the over under on the number of law chnages betwenn now and 2008? I will take the over if its 1.5 or less.

Oracle, should the courts be fair or just? “Fair” would be giving each candidate the exact same amount of money to spend. “Just” would be allowing people to proceed with their fundraising campaign under the laws that were present during the time the fundraising occured. It’s not fair but I think it’s just and that’s what our courts are their to decide.

I’ve read the article and it doesn’t mention anything about contribution limits for those running for local office. I seem to recall a post in this blog or an article that detailed how one candidate from Creve Coeur had received $10,000 from one donor.
Will this effect muni contributions?
If so, what is the contribution limit pre-overturned-law?

Thank goodness the Supreme Court had the decency to stop this silly money race that was going on. Voters were sick of reading about it, because they generally don’t have $10K to give this person, $50K to give that person. For anyone running in an election next year, here’s a new flash: It’s about the people, their wellbeing, and the state…it is not about the money!

If you listen very carefully you will hear Senator Tim Green chuckling. He introduced this legislation to give the voters full disclosure (transparency) into the operating costs the “Associated Industries” must pay for a Republican controlled legislature…Something Judge Stephen Limbaugh doesn’t want you to know.

Actually, if Garrison had really been paying attention to the issue, AIM had nothing to do with Green’s desire to eliminate contribution limits. This is a crusade he’s been on since he was in the majority.

I don’t expect facts to get in the way, though.

Jim, are you claiming the AIM and other business interests didn’t try to influence Republicans with campaign contributions. How do you explain the Republicans becoming the majority? The AIM has consistently made attempts to sell their pro-business, anti-worker agenda?….The AIM is a lobbying organization that drafts legislation to eliminate workers comp laws and push “Right to Work”….Now tell us about the facts….

Garrison … AIM doesn’t try to influence legislation any more than the AFL-CIO does (or the NEA, the ACLU, or a host of other liberal-agenda organizations).

The fact is that there are republicans that have a pro-business agenda that receive contributions from groups like AIM, and there are democrats that support the labor union agenda that receive contributions from groups like the AFL-CIO.

I know you don’t have a problem comprehending that aspect, so I’m going to just guess that you are okay with it when groups you support give contributions, but not when groups you don’t support do it?