The Court made an exception, however, in the case of candidates contributing to their own campaigns because of the rather reasonable presumption that a candidate is incapable of corrupting himself.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
As a consequence, the Court ruled that the limits on campaign spending violated the First Amendment, but it accepted the $1,000 limit on individual contributions on the ground that the need to avoid the appearance of corruption justified this limited constraint on speech.
People have their constitutional right to contribute to a campaign and if they have discretionary money that they want to contribute to a candidate, whether a Republican or a Democrat, they should be able to do so.
That's the whole point of... of prosecutorial discretion in the judicial system. It's finding a just outcome in an individual case.
If candidates spend money on ads and other political speech and their opponents are rewarded with government handouts to attack them, that chills speech and is unconstitutional. Non-participating candidates certainly don't volunteer to allow their opponents to receive taxpayer subsidies to bash them.
No one can just file a charge and go directly to a jury trial. That just cannot happen.
Anyone can be falsely accused of a crime. Everyone accused of a crime deserves a fair trial.
Weary of wily politicians who say one thing and do another, voters and advocacy groups insist presidential contenders commit to the cause du jour in writing, but candidates are foolish to comply. Words matter.
One of the problems with a candidate like Bob Kennedy, and his brother before him, was that people assumed they didn't need contributions.
This is what happens, when, for the first time in modern history, a candidate resorts to lawsuits to try to overturn the outcome of an election for president.
It's very hard to uphold individual liberty when the person you're representing is often a crook.
No opposing quotes found.