Page 2 - Aggregate Limit News Today

Using this corruption line but the same rational he used to get rid of the aggregate, it seems to me he didnt really get -- they could have easily gotten rid of the individual limit. >> roberts has always been more about evolution than revolution. >> very arbitrary. here is where the issue -- >> i think the aggregate limit is arbitrary here. its outrageous and roberts talked about it in the case. im hoping that the supreme court will follow it all the way down to individual limits because -- >> ...

Limits on the aggregate amount of money that any one donor can spend on candidates and political parties in any one election. there used to be a limit of about $123,000 for what you could spend on federal candidates, and the fund-raising committees for the political parties. that aggregate limit is now struck down. so for the very fortunate people in our country who are bumping up against that six figure ceiling in terms of what they wanted to donate in an election cycle. those folks are now fre...

Federal candidates, members of the house, members of the senate, presidential candidates. the issue thats being challenged here is theres another limit people havent heard of. the total amount that you can give to all candidates put together in any two-year period or all political parties and pacs and other organizations. thats whats being challenged here and i would say after listening to the argument today, there are five votes on the supreme court to strike that down as unfair. however, the b...

Now the conservative court is gearing up for yet another decision that could change the way we do politics in this country. today the justices heard oral arguments in a case thats being called citizens united on steroids. sean mccutcheon, ceo, is the plaintiff in the case of mccutcheon versus federal exchange committee. now this man claims aggregate contribution limits violate the first amendment by limiting an individual donors political expression. mccutcheon is now challenging the aggregate l...

This $123,000 limit or the $48,000 limit in direct contributions to candidates. >> well, and i want to bring in michael here. the other issue here is that this seems like a silly -- it seems like a silly restriction now after citizens united gave the blueprint. citizens united didnt start the idea of super pacs. we always want to make that distinction. but essentially election lawyers used citizens united to come up with this superpab pac blueprint that it does allow mr mr. mccutchen, he can onl...

Mccutchen isnt challenging the base limit. hes challenging the aggregate limit. he told pete williams he simply wants to be able to get more money to more people. >> i would like to see more competition, more candidates, more challengers, more ideas, and not every candidate out there can sell funds, so a lot of candidates are faced with raising money from private individuals because the institutional money is going to go to the incumbents. so, again, i think this is about, you know, changing the...

Mccutchen versus federal election in a case that will determine the overall limits on what an individual can give to candidates, political parties, and political action committees in a two-year election cycle. which means more money in politics. just what we all need. for more now, im joined by nbc justice correspondent, pete williams. pete, the actual amount you can give to a candidate is not being challenged here. but rather the aggregate limit that you can give to all candidates or all politi...

States can go in restricting access to abortions. the courts last term saw the justices striking down the defense of marriage act and key provision of the -- while the coming term may not conclude in june with the same fireworks as the last two, it has the potential to reshape american politics and individual liberties in profound ways. justice correspondent peter williams joins us now live to talk about this. pete, lets talk about the case as we understand it, taking up first. >> tomorrow will ...

Congress is going to be less likely to -- its really important not to let all the political hoopla around citizens united trickle to this case. its a separate issue. with the contributions, you can limit them because theres too much of a threat of corruption. its not theres too much money in politics. this is a rational. i can lay so much money at your doorstep and to this point about aggregate limits. this is the strongest argument. i agree with that. its to say the independent limits, the indi...

But also could allow wealthy donors to have an even greater impact. correspondent shannon bream has details and reaction tonight from the court. >> in a 5-4 opinion, the supreme court today struck down a key limit on political contributions. one sides calling it a major first amendment victory while critics are dubbing it the end of democracy. limits on what donors can give to each specific candidate, party committee or political action committee remain in tact, but the overall aggregate limit, ...