No, they weren't. What it did was place an extra layer of bureacracy between them and their donors in the form of 501c's which made it inconvemient, but did not prevent them from collecting campaign donations. It also violated the free speech rights of the people by preventing individuals from presenting ads that mentioned specific candidates.
As I noted, “The courts are not meant to overturn national elections based on “I don’t like the outcome”.
When courts have overturned election results in the past, it WAS on the basis of "I don't like the outcome". However, the plaintiff used a section of the law to codify their claim, but the effect is no different. Someone still didn't like the outcome of the election, thus the court challenge.
Ankeney was the first that I can think of, and there have been multiple others since.
The Ankeny case was a hearing to obtain a writ to block the state's election results. A hearing does not require all the evidence to be presented the way a jury trial does. In addition, since that time, additional information has been developed that shows the intent to decive that was not available at the time of the Ankeny hearing.
Because in the majority of cases, the plaintiffs had suffered no specific damage. The rules for the courts say that if everyone suffers equally, then no one suffers. This prevents nuisance cases, and it is applied all the time.
Again, that applies to CIVIL court cases, NOT criminal court cases. The rules of evidence are different between civil and criminal court cases and, contrary to your contention about nuisance cases, those are filed all the time. This is why there has been a push of late to develop "loser pays" conditions for lawsuits to reduce the number of nuisance cases.
No. Criminal cases always have ‘standing’ because the crime is against the state, and the DA represents the state.
Nor has anyone shown any evidence of FRAUD in the posting of Obama’s birth certificate. To do that, you would have to prove he altered information, and was using it to deceive a court. If we could nail politicians for simply lying, we wouldn’t have anyone left in Congress.
And no, courts do NOT overturn elections based on “I didn’t like the outcome”. There had to be a specific LEGAL reason.
There have been multiple cases where judges held hearings. That is normal. You don’t get a jury trial all the time. If the defendant, in this case Obama, says you don’t have the basis for a trial, then you get a hearing. And to date, Obama has won. Not because judges are all corrupt, but because...you don’t have a case. And yes, a lack of standing and a lack of jurisdiction are common causes for a court to reject a case without it going to jury trial.
Also, please remember that ALL of the birther cases have been CIVIL cases. If you think you have a CRIMINAL case, you need to convince a DA, not a judge. And to date, there isn’t even ONE DA in the USA who agrees with birthers. That should tell you something...not 1. Anywhere. ZERO!