Supreme Court Must Throw Out Campaign Finance Laws

Fox News ^ | Friday, September 11, 2009 | John R. Lott Jr.

[JohnRLott]

Justice Anthony Scalia made a prediction in 2003 when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the McCain-Feingold law in 2003: "if history teaches us anything, [it] is that when you plug one means of expression, the money will go to whatever means of expression are left." The case the Supreme Court heard on Wednesday, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, shows that Justice Scalia was right.

The case focused on a movie released during the 2008 presidential campaign, "Hillary: The Movie." It doesn't explicitly advocate that Hillary Clinton be defeated in her bid for the presidency, but no one watching the movie will come to any other conclusion. Should the movie's costs count as a campaign expenditure? Campaign finance laws limit how much can be donated to a campaign, but if organizations such as Citizens United can make movies attacking the opposing candidate, what is the point of donation limits?

The Federal Election Commission's answer: ban the showing of the movie and the TV ads promoting the movie. The McCain-Feingold election law greatly restricted the use of third party spending to help candidates. On radio, television, cable TV, or satellite broadcast such spending was banned for 30 days before a primary election or nominating convention, or within 60 days before a general election. Yet, the notion that the government can ban the showing of movies or ads for the movies would strike many as objectionable.

Consider some less blatant examples. Suppose instead of attacking a candidate, some movies attack positions that other candidates support? Or what about television shows that make claims about health insurance or gun control right before an election? Are the courts and the Federal Election Commission supposed to pre-screen and approve those movies and television shows? . . .

[DManA]

Congress may make no law.. = Congress can if they feel like it..

English is so overrated.

[isthisnickcool]

I'd like to have one simple campaign finance law. It's very simple and goes like this "No person may provide anything of value or monies to any candidate running for congressional federal office unless the person is legally registered to vote for such candidate".

That's it. No more lobbyists, no more people in congress collecting money from some group they do not represent, no more PACS, etc. And, because congress could only raise money from the people that elect them they would be in their states all the time listening to their voters. This would also make more people get involved since their vote makes more of a difference.

This would never pass but it is more along the lines of what the founders had in mind. A representative republic.

[Ev Reeman]

IT’s simple. McCain-Feingold should have never become law because of its unconstitutionality. It limits, restricts and even eliminates freedom of speech provisions and that applies to not only individuals but corporations, companies, churches and every other entity in the US.

[muawiyah]

McCain Feingold limits my right to act in concert with my fellow citizens ~ that's called "the right to peaceably assemble".

[nitzy]

How about, "No legislator may write, sponsor or vote on legislation which will directly financially impact any person or group who has contributed or will contribute funds or services to the legislator for a period of 4 years before or after the date of the contribution."

In other words, "You can't take bribes or kick backs"

[Buckeye McFrog]

if Barry gets a couple more appointments one might expect a convoluted split-decision trying to explain that such speech would be OK for unions, but not corporations. (in fact I expect the Wise Latina’s ruling to say exactly that!)

[ClearCase_guy]

I like your suggestion.

The Joe Wilson incident was a good indicator of the problem. Within about 24 hours of his calling Obama a liar, Wilson's opponent received tens of thousands of dollars, and then Wilson started to receive even larger sums.

People in California should not be influencing races for US Reps in South Carolina.

[Ingtar]

$200,000 to Wilson so far / $750,000 to his opponent from Soros groups so far.

[rellimpank]

--and my disillusionment with the Bush Administration began when he signed McC-F, rather than vetoing it on national TV with a large placard behind him, with the first few words of the First Amendment highlighted and in bold--- "Congress shall make no law--"

[CIB-173RDABN]

I would add a requirement that ALL donations must be made public.

[isthisnickcool]

That is a good idea too. Heck, just look at Charlie Rangel.

I'd also suggest that no elected member of congress shall meet with or belong to any group where membership is based upon race or sex. IE: Get rid of the Congressional Black Caucus.

[ClearCase_guy]

Unbelievable.

There's also the suggestion that House membership should be greatly expanded. I believe one idea was that each US Rep should represent 60,000 people -- no more. I'm not up on the details, but people have put a lot of thought into the concept and it seemed like it might be workable.

If the State Legislatures still appointed US Senators to represent the interests of the state, and if there were lots and lots and lots of US Reps, then it would be hard(er) for big money interests to influence politics.

And, of course, we need Closed Primaries and Voter ID cards.

[isthisnickcool]

There should be no George Soros groups. And no Hil-Pacs/ There also needs to be a huge house cleaning when it comes to "no profits". This is a subject I have been ranting on here at FR for years. There are way too many so-called nonprofits that are nothing more than beards for real businesses or they are simply fronts for political BS.

A nonprofit should be a charity. It should be helping people find food or housing or medical care. It should not be in the tree hugging business, for example. Did you know that the Consumers Digest, printed by a nonprofits called Consumers Union has 100's of millions of dollars in the bank? A "charity"? No way!

[ex-snook]

While they are at it also throw out money is speech. Speech means you say or write not how much is in your pocketbook. The candidate who raises the most ‘free speech’ can control elections. A conservative will never be elected again because of the amount of ‘free speech’ Hollywood and Wall Street can contribute.

[Elle Bee]

Justice Anthony Scalia made a prediction in 2003 when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the McCain-Feingold law in 2003: "if history teaches us anything, [it] is that when you plug one means of expression, the money will go to whatever means of expression are left." The case the Supreme Court heard on Wednesday, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, shows that Justice Scalia was right.

If only they could throw out McCain & Feingold along with their silly law

.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Frankly, I am against any restrictions on campaign donations. Any. You can’t take the politics out of politics.

I would demand complete disclosure and make it a serious crime to try to cover up the source of the donations through laundering or any other means.

An informed, moral electorate who holds their politicians accountable is the only means of recourse against tyranny. When the electorate is no longer informed and moral, you will get tyranny. The money itself does not really matter.

That said, I would like to see the electorate scaled back. If you don’t pay taxes, you don’t vote. If you receive welfare, you don’t vote. If you benefit directly from government money, you don’t vote - although I’m not sure how that one would work.

IMHO, the voters were far more astute when it was confined to landowners. Women got the vote and the taller, better looking guy has been winning ever since. Conservatives need to quit running people who are conservative, and start recruiting easily controlled men who look like Tom Cruise, and agree to follow the lead of their conservative handlers. Conservatives could dominate Government in 2 cycles.