Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[oceanview]

exactly right. and what's the recourse, you are going to sue the paper? what court is going to rule in your favor, after all, they were just upholding the new CFR law.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress can regulate the "Manner" of holding elections this clearly falls within that power.

[jimkress]

Stopping attack ads

So you admit that political speech is suppressed by this 'law'. Glad to see you finally understand.

Too bad you continue to think it's OK to suppress speech that you don't like.

[VRWC_minion]

Bush promised to gut the First Amendment? I must have missed that campaign promise.

Just for that statement I'm reporting you the authorities. Expect to live out your remaining days in a camp.

[Dane]

Having looked at the law, I do not see anything that prevents direct mailing of videotapes. Perhaps sending a free copy of Terminator III to targeted groups with messages from the President and Arnold are possible.

Books with CD's (like Ollie North's War Stories book are possible.

Direct mailings of calendars are possible.

I can think of a lot of other things that are possible within the confines of the law.

I actually thought that Bush would veto this, but I was wrong. Although I don't agree, I do understand why he didn't (Daschle was running the Senate and threatening to hold up all legislation).

So, it is up to us to think of how to get our message out, and it is also up to us to convince enough people that this law is bad and should be changed

How dare you have a positive attitude on FR. You traitor.

To all lurkers, the above non-italicized passage is meant as sarcasm, not to Miss Marple, but to the posters on FR, from reading their posts on this thread who are acting as if the Sun has burnned out.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.

Tell me, Arne, is this Constitutional, hmmm? Is it? Is it??? Hmmmm????

[Mo1]

HA! .. That's a joke right?

[justshutupandtakeit]

It does in fact nullify any idea that the First amendment involves an absolute freedom of speech. It never meant any such thing.

[NittanyLion]

Wow! You've already read the 300 pages of this judicial decision? Please, fill us in. What exactly did the court have to say about CFR? Will all the members of the house and Senate that signed the bill be impeached? The judges? All of them? You're right, and they're all wrong! Wow. Impressive!

So you think CFR is constitutional?

[4CJ]

When the average lawyer spouted the average bullsh*t in front of me, I would throw my gavel at him and tell him to get out of my courtroom. In most courts, that is considered unaccepatble behavior. LOL.

Maybe throwing the gavel at him is exactly what is needed! ;o)

[concerned about politics]

You can't speak out within 60 days of an election,

Holy crap! Hillary has to aviod the camera for 60 days? But....but....her celebrity !! She needs that camera!!

[VRWC_minion]

Yes he did and in violation of his Oath of Office to " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

By signing a bill that was just declared constitutional ? Inconceivable.

[Beck_isright]

"Since I brought the subject up:
Look, this does not apply to FR. Period."

How do you know? Have you tested this in the 9th Circuit yet? If not, you have ZERO authority to make this statement.

"We are a website not a cable or satellite medium."

We are also not a "printed" medium which has been defined as "the press" in all previous 1st Amendment challenges. Do some homework.

"Considering the future effect of this law's definitions and more importantly it's whole philosophy on an internet that became a general mass media might be a useful way to critique the law."

Which means that liberal Clinton appointees will determine the future of the internet in many cases. Enjoy your freedoms now folks.

" But maybe not, it's certainly seems too early to do so here without causing undue anxiety."

When the ACLU or commie libs sue FR, remember your words.

[stljoe71]

I don't know I took it seriously enough to sign and I haven't voted for a republican since.

[JCEccles]

Is Scalia being hysterical?

[spunkets]

"Congress can regulate the "Manner" of holding elections this clearly falls within that power."

It does not. The manner of elections regards the mechanics, not the Freedom of specch involved in presenting and diseminating information about candidates. What this does fall under is the 1st Amend. of the Bill of Rights only.

[Sabertooth]

I actually thought that Bush would veto this, but I was wrong. Although I don't agree, I do understand why he didn't (Daschle was running the Senate and threatening to hold up all legislation).

So what?

If Bush had vetoed McCain-Feingold in April of 2002, the veto would have been sustained. Daschle was going to do nothing for a year and a half?

That bluff should have been called.

[Howlin]

Sorry. Would you like for me to drive to D.C., lay down on the Mall and let people spit on me because I didn't say I hated Bush for what he did?

I said I didn't agree with the bill or his signing; I said I was upset with the ruling.

What will satisfy you?

If I said he was an asshole, would that satisfy you?

If I said he shouldn't have ever been elected, would that satisfy you?

If I said he was just like his daddy, would that satisfy you?

If I said he was the worst president we ever had, would that satisfy you?

I think not.

[hellinahandcart]

I understand why you're laughing it up. Really.

It's either that, or contemplate the shrinking list of things you're still allowed to do legally.

So knock yourself out.

[Howlin]

Convenient for them, though!