Today, the Supreme Court struck down Watergate-era campaign donation limits in a controversial 5-4 decision. What does this ruling mean for the election process? How will this impact upcoming elections? Some doctors are concerned with the health impacts of Girl Scout Cookies. Should the Girl Scouts offer healthier options?
Supreme Court strikes down overall limit on campaign donations
In a 5-4 split ruling today, the Supreme Court said political donors still have to limit contributions to individual campaigns, but said there is no cap to how much money a donor can spread across candidates and political committees. In 2013 and 2014, the overall spending limit was $123,200.
Now, wealthy contributors can pour millions of dollars into a plethora of candidates and causes. Writing for the court's conservative majority, Chief Justice John Roberts stated the overall limits "intrude without justification on a citizen's ability to exercise 'the most fundamental First Amendment activities.'"
Speaking from the bench for the dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer said the ruling "understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institution." Breyer said today's McCutcheon decision will be more influential than the controversial Citizens United case of 2010 that lifted limits on spending by corporations and unions.
Do you agree with Justice Roberts constitutional analysis or Justice Breyer’s take? How does the fact that donations will be subject to disclosure alter things, if at all? Who has the most to gain and the most to lose from today’s decision? Which campaign finance laws will be challenged next?
With files from the Associated Press.
Guests:
Lisa McElroy, Associate Professor of Law, Earle Mack School of Law, Drexel University; Visiting Associate Professor , University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law
Erin E. Murphy, partner at the Washington DC law firm Bancroft PLLC, and argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of appellants Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee.
Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s democracy program - a nonpartisan institute focused on election law and democracy at NYU School of Law
How comfortable are you talking about salaries with coworkers?
The Senate is expected to vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which aims to eliminate the wage gap between men and women.
Similar versions of the bill passed by the Senate had been killed before by House Republicans. One provision of the law would ban companies from retaliating against workers who talk about their pay. Federal labor law already makes company retaliation illegal, but experts say a lot of companies still prohibit employees from doing so.
Some human resources professionals worry that too much pay transparency would lead to resentment and low morale among workers, but advocates say disclosure is the only way to ensure pay equity.
Have you ever talked about how much you make with your coworkers?
Guest:
Stephanie Thomas, Research Associate with the Institute for Compensation Studies and a lecturer with the Department of Economics at Cornell University.
Doctors worried about childhood obesity want Girl Scout cookies off the market
The Girl Scouts and their cookies may be sweet, but all that temptation is drawing criticism from doctors and parents who feel the scouts’ tradition of selling cookies isn’t in line with modern public health.
Girl Scout cookie season is the biggest fundraising event for the group as well as a social phenomenon. But chowing down on Thin Mints and Samoas is unquestionably bad for you -- the cookies are fatty and sugary, full of ingredients people are supposed to be avoiding -- and even if you’re aiming for moderation, it’s hard to eat just one.
Critics say that Girl Scout cookies are just a sign of a larger problem with American hyperconsumption.
Cookie sales mimic other kinds of seasonal or limited-time gorging (Easter candy, McRib sandwiches, Halloween sweets, etc) that entice consumers and reinforce unhealthy habits. So what’s the alternative?
Should the Girl Scouts sell tofu or veggies? Should they invest in healthier, less delicious cookies? Should we all just quiet down and enjoy a Thin Mint (or 20)?
Guest:
Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute in Ottawa; Author, “The Diet Fix” (March 2014); Board-Certified Physician by the American Board of Bariatric (Obesity) Medicine; Blogs at weightymatters.ca
Earthquake insurance: Expensive but worth the cost?
The recent earthquakes that shook Southern California also rattled the nerves of some homeowners who will be left with huge bills if a really destructive quake were to strike. Earthquake damage is not covered under regular homeowner's insurance and the vast majority of Californians don't have separate policies to protect them in case of damage to their homes.
The California Earthquake Authority estimates that 90 percent of Californians aren't covered in case of quake damage. That may be because earthquake insurance policies tend to be pricey and typically don't kick in until the homeowner has paid around 10-15 percent of the home's value in deductibles.
Most Californians aren't willing to shell out the hundreds of dollars a year, on top of a hefty deductible, to protect against the remote possibility of an earthquake causing severe damage.
So is earthquake insurance worth the cost? Why is it so expensive? If the 'Big One' does hit — will most Californians be left in financial ruin because they're not insured?
Interview Highlights
Glenn Pomeroy, CEO of California Earthquake Authority
- “In a high-risk area, [earthquake insurance] is not inexpensive, and that’s because the risk is not insignificant.”
- “I think it’s a misperception to assume that the federal government is going to come in and make everybody whole again after a natural disaster. Ask the victims of Katrina; ask the victims of hurricane Sandy; look at the nightly news in terms of the devastation in those communities that still exist because people didn’t have, in many cases, their own financial strength to rebuild and recover.”
Kathy Kristof, Los Angeles-based personal finance columnist and contributing editor to Kiplinger's Personal Finance
- “What bothers me is that the California Earthquake Authority Policies are so limited that I’m not sure they would pay off if you did have a quake.”
- “If you remember the Northridge quake, what did you lose: chimneys, walls, china, crystal, all that sort of stuff, right? Those things are all specifically excluded from the California Earthquake Authority policy with the exception of paying up to $5,000 to replace your chimney… All the things that historically we’ve seen have significant damage, are not covered. The only thing the earthquake policy would cover for you is if your house slid off the foundation and really had extensive damage.”
To listen to this segment in its entirety, click on the "Listen Now" icon in the upper left.
Have you invested in earthquake insurance. Why or why not?
Will the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon ruling be a game changer for the 2014 Midterms?
The Supreme Court's Wednesday morning ruling allowing wealthy donors to give money to as many political candidates, parties and committees as they wish will face its first test as the 2014 midterm elections quickly approach. The 5-4 decision is the latest to loosen the rules around campaign finance by striking down the limits on how much individuals can donate during a federal election cycle.
The conservative-majority ruling lifts the cap - which previously stood at $123,200 overall for a two-year election cycle - allowing individual donors to instead spend millions. Donors are still limited in how much they can give each candidate or national political party but they can now donate to as many candidates and committees as they wish.
This ruling could have huge repercussions for the upcoming election, which is already in full swing. With wealthy individuals now able to contribute to an unlimited number of candidates and party committees, it opens the door for far more money to flow into the election season than in previous races.
What impact will this SCOTUS ruling have on local and national midterm race? Will we see a huge amount of cash flow into the election that would otherwise not have been spent? Since the number of high level donors is so small, and there are plenty of opportunities to spend money with political action committees, will its impact be limited?
Guest:
Doyle McManus, Washington Columnist, Los Angeles Times
How do people strike up conversations based on geography?
Starting a conversation with a stranger can be hard, and is sometimes even taboo.
A shared complaint about bad traffic, weather, or a delay on public transportation can be an in in a big city.
In smaller towns or more remote places, asking where someone went to high school or goes to church is more common.
But the way that people strike up conversations with strangers varies widely based on region and culture -- what may be normal and okay for one group or place would seem odd somewhere else.
Asking “who’s your mother?” or offering up a casual, unprompted “how are you?” is a regional pleasure. The ways Americans speak to each other fall on a broad spectrum of intimacy.
How do people across the country strike up conversations? How do you talk to strangers, if at all? In what ways does our language indicate the place we come from?
Guest:
Carmen Fought, Ph.D, professor of linguistics at Pitzer College