Posted on 06/26/2008 10:09:44 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Supreme Court strikes down part of campaign finance law Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:15pm EDT
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court struck down on Thursday part of a U.S. campaign finance law that relaxes contribution limits for candidates facing wealthy, self-funded opponents, a ruling that could affect congressional elections in November.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court declared unconstitutional the provision known as the "millionaire's amendment" that Congress adopted out of concern that rich, self-financing candidates would have a competitive advantage.
It allows congressional candidates to accept higher contributions when they face opponents who spend large amounts of their own money. It is part of the 2002 campaign finance law named after its Senate sponsors, Democrat Russell Feingold and John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Supremes have been busy.
Can’t this idiotic piece of crap legislation be any worse?
Pathetic.
Any law that does not restrict the right of unions and the media to in effect make in-kind donations to their candidates must be declared unconstitutional. If the court is throwing out the restrictions on one group, then it should throw out the restrictions on all groups.
Yeah....and I don’t even know what’s worse....that he wrote that POS or that he thought it was Constitutional.
This is good. It exposes on fetid chunk of flesh on the corpse of McNuts / Feingold.
The Goo Goos will go nuts, and do more stupid things to be overturned.
Someday in the far off distant future, the whole Free Speech restriction regime put in place by Comrade Juan McNuts will be thrown out.
This is a good first step.
“Yeah....and I don’t even know what’s worse....that he wrote that POS or that he thought it was Constitutional.”
Maybe he didn’t care.
Pathetic.
Judging from the bills he's sponsored, most of them named after him and its radical, liberal cosponsor, I don't believe McCain has ever read the Constitution.
This decision has gone under the radar because of the Heller decision, but it is significant. It represents another defeat for those who try to stifle political free speech. I don’t understand why all of McCain-Feingold is not considered unconstitutional. However, it is a good decision.
It’s hard to tell how broad this ruling is from the article. I hope it’s very broad and indicates an inclination to declare the whole edifice to be unconstitutional, which it is.
The Supreme Court STRUCK DOWN on Thursday part of a U.S. campaign finance law that RELAXES contribution limits for candidates facing wealthy, self-funded opponents .... article
I'm not sure I get your point.
If I am running against you and I have a personal fortune of $800 million, the law would have RELAXED the campaign contribution limits of your supporters who want you elected instead of me.
That law was struck down.
How does imposing stricter contribution limits on YOUR supporters constitute "political free speech"?
All I see is that I can spend $100 million to get you defeated, (which I was allowed to do anyway before the Supreme Court ruling) but you, on the other hand, are not legally allowed to raise $100 million even if your supporters were willing to raise $300 million for you.
“In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
He said such evidence “is nowhere to be found.””
Here’s a little help, John Paul...
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
OOPS. I put my previous post in the wrong thread!!
On the othe hand, it’s good to spread it around.
Ruth Ginsburg thought it was good law.
That’s all I need to know to come to the conclusion that it must be unconstitutional.
Knowing that McCain wrote it I know at the very least it must be free of any intellectual logical thought.
Is it the Supreme Court's job to make elections "fair"? Why shouldn't the "millionaire" have the benefit of the advantage his money confers upon him? Why should the candidate facing a "millionaire" be allowed a greater level of contributions than a candidate facing a more modestly endowed opponent?
This particular exception -- designed to micro-manage the "fairness of it all" -- is just one more reason why the whole of McCain-Feingold should be ashcanned.
Is it the Supreme Court's job to make elections "fair"?
Is it the Supreme Court's job to say that I cannot contribute as much as I want to the political candidate of my choice?
Why shouldn't the "millionaire" have the benefit of the advantage his money confers upon him?
If I am worth $800 million, why shouldn't the candidate I support have the benefit of the advantage my money confers upon him?
Why should the candidate facing a "millionaire" be allowed a greater level of contributions than a candidate facing a more modestly endowed opponent?
Why should any candidate not be allowed the level of contributions that his supporters are willing to give?
Hold the rifles, hold the speech, make new laws, it wont upset us!
It's not all that broad; you can read it here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/07-320_ob.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.