Please see this series of videos from 2007 of Mike Pence speaking at the Cato Institute. He states that McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws were unconstitutional. Considering the new information about Supreme Court Justice Thomas and Scalia attending one of the Koch meetings, I have to wonder just how long this was all in the planning. The Cato Institute, Koch Brothers, and Americans for Prosperity are intertwined and Mike Pence benefits from this alliance.
My question to Mike Pence regarding Americans for Prosperity might be, "Which Americans are prospering - besides you, the Koch Brothers and other politicians with big corporate interests?"
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
The End of Campaign Finance Reform?
Here is the link to the Cato Institute page with the video:
The End of Campaign Finance Reform?
CAPITOL HILL BRIEFING
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Noon
Featuring Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute.B-354 Rayburn House Office BuildingThe recent Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life marks a change in direction in judicial doctrines concerning campaign finance. As recently as 2003, a majority of the Court upheld the strictures on free speech enacted in McCain-Feingold. In Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court forcefully stated that the benefit of the doubt lies with freedom of speech and not with the government. What will this decision mean for the 2008 campaign? How has the Court limited the power of Congress to regulate campaign finance and freedom of speech? Will we see a general deregulation of campaign finance compelled by judicial decisions over the next few years? Please join us to hear a leading congressional critic of restrictions on campaign spending and to discuss this vital judicial decision and its implications for Congress and national politics.
 |
Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana
(Credit: Getty Images/Alex Wong)
|
Before the Citizens United vs FEC Ruling: Pence was the only House member to become a plaintiff in the McCain-Feingold case, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. He charged that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was unconstitutional.
In January of 2010 the Supreme Court Ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that Corporations had the same free speech rights as people and that money in elections is free speech. We now understand how that opened the doors for unlimited corporate spending in elections.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office. SOURCE
2010 Source
2012 [as of 1-26-12] Source
