Plaintiff Attorney: Caps on Individual Donors 'Self-Serving Garbage'

The man who led the challenge that resulted in the Supreme Court’s ruling to eliminate aggregate caps on political donations from individual donors says his opponents never had a valid argument.

"It’s self-serving garbage that fundamentally benefits incumbents and I'm glad it’s been knocked out," said Dan Backer, founder and principal attorney for DB Capitol Strategies and lead political counsel for Shaun McCutcheon, the plaintiff in the case heard by the high court, on "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

Backer said the court’s decision was based on the belief, established in the Constitution, that free speech is an inherent right, and one the government can restrict only for very good reasons.

"The idea is clear that you have free speech, you are entitled to free speech, you don't have a different amount of free speech just because you have more or less money, you have as much speech as you're able to engage in," Backer said.

"Imagine what it would mean for our democracy, for our society if the government could go in and put, say, government employees in your newsroom or your radio show and dictate to you what you are and aren't allowed to say because they want more of this or less of that."

Story continues below video.



Backer said Democratic attacks against deep-pocketed political spenders like the Koch brothers and corporations that donate to candidates have gone too far.

"As repugnant as this behavior is, they are privileged to make these speeches," he said. "That being said, we're getting to a point where the level of personal attack in legislation, not even just [against] industries but now companies, is [so far along that] I'm waiting for the first [lawsuit] where a corporation simply says, ‘look, we are being unconstitutionally singled out, you are attacking us, and we're entitled to relief.’"

See "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV each weekday live by clicking here now.