Posted on 01/22/2010 3:21:45 AM PST by Scanian
Score a big one for the First Amend ment.
The US Supreme Court yesterday found that an activist group had every right to distribute a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primaries -- turning the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law on its head in the process.
The 5-4 ruling also rolled back other campaign-finance statutes that predated McCain-Feingold -- meaning the government can no longer ban corporations and labor unions from spending money on activities and communications that support or oppose a candidate.
Such laws, the court found, impose a "chilling effect" on political speech.
Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out that the rules were so strict that the government could conceivably ban a re-release of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" during the campaign season
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Is this going to make it any harder to tell WHO is behind a particular political ad?
Wonderful! Now we can have the CEO`s of corporations buying/selecting our Presidents. Lets hear it for “free speech!”
Does this mean organizations like the NRA can advertise on the MSM right up to election night? I don’t read this in here.
Your lack of critical, logical thinking is amazing.
If the way you play chess is reflected in this post, try checkers.
“Wonderful! Now we can have the CEO`s of corporations buying/selecting our Presidents. Lets hear it for “free speech!”
What goofy logic...Wonderful ! Now we will have UNIONS, 501 orginazation run by Soros, left wing political FRONT 501 organzations, and the LIBERAL media selecting our presidents...”
FREE SPEECH is FREE SPEECH to ALL...whether CEO’s, unions, or the average Joe giving to campaigns...they ALL are protected by the CONSTITUTION...John McCain lost sight of the RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH with this HORRIBLE McCain/Finegold.
ALL LAWS MUST be in compliance with the Constitution.
AT least with this ruling, ALL CAN HAVE A SAY...CEO’s and LEFT WING UNIONS are ALL citizens.
Speaking of the reporting requirements that were upheld by the majority, Thomas cited specific examples from recent history that illustrate vividly why this requirement should be stricken on a constitutional basis...
Amici ’s examples relate principally to Proposition 8, a state ballot proposition that California voters narrowly passed in the 2008 general election. Proposition 8 amended California’s constitution to provide that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Cal. Const., Art. I, §7.5. Any donor who gave more than $100 to any committee supporting or opposing Proposition 8 was required to disclose his full name, street address, occupation, employer’s name (or business name, if self-employed), and the total amount of his contributions. 1 See Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §84211(f) (West 2005). The California Secretary of State was then required to post this information on the Internet. See §§84600–84601; §§84602–84602.1 (West Supp. 2010); §§84602.5–84604 (West 2005); §85605 (West Supp. 2010); §§84606–84609 (West 2005).
Some opponents of Proposition 8 compiled this information and created Web sites with maps showing the locations of homes or businesses of Proposition 8 supporters. Many supporters (or their customers) suffered property damage, or threats of physical violence or death, as a result. They cited these incidents in a complaint they filed after the 2008 election, seeking to invalidate California’s mandatory disclosure laws. Supporters recounted being told: “Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter,” or, “we have plans for you and your friends.” Complaint in ProtectMarriage.com—Yes on 8 v. Bowen , Case No. 2:09–cv–00058–MCE–DAD (ED Cal.), ¶31. Proposition 8 opponents also allegedly harassed the measure’s supporters by defacing or damaging their property. Id. , ¶32. Two religious organizations supporting Proposition 8 reportedly received through the mail envelopes containing a white powdery substance. Id. , ¶33.
Yup. Here we have specific, detailed examples of the consequences of the law, yet for some reason the majority didn't find anything wrong with it's use to stifle dissent.
Keieth Olbermann...is that you?
To the Left, “Free Speech” means pornography, gay parades, potty mouth, and any expression of debauchery and sexual perversion.
Political speech that contradicts or disparages in any way their “progressive” world view is characterized as “hate speech”.
McCain and Feingold and their fellow travelers thought it best to make ILLEGAL, in the closing weeks of a political campaign, all political speech outside of that expressed by the candidates themselves.
What better way to protect the incumbent good old boys club?
And George Bush signed it into law.
One of the very WORST moments in W’s presidency.
Thanks...and 100% agree.
And George Bush signed it into law.
One of the very WORST moments in W’s presidency.
++++++++++++++
Did Dubya veto anything?
FREE SPEECH
No such thing. There are already laws on the books which regulate what you can, and cannot say. It’s called hate speech. And the laws against it are applied in a discriminatory manner.
Call and adolescent, ‘boy’, and you can go to jail.
Call a flaming homosexual a ‘faggot’ and you can go to jail.
Call a Conservative Protester a ‘faggot’ (tea bagger) and your audience share goes up. (And Matthews/Anderson/Olberman know exactly what tea-bagger stands for.)
Oops.
“Call an adolescent, ‘boy’, and you can go to jail.”
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.