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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

[KantianBurke]

Huh? Post #11 was mine. There was a quote of Jim Robinson's mentioned somewhere in the thread but that was regarding his comments about the upcoming election a few days ago. Not this recent decision.

[Eastbound]

"GW said upon many occasions he did not support McCain/Fiengold CFR and yet signed the bill anyway. He either had a instant epiphany or he ignored his Constitutional duty and oath of office to pass the buck to the judiciary who have now affirmed the bill and ipso facto made it a part of US Law."

If he signed it to gain a pro quo from the dems on his supreme court appointments, it was a bad gamble. Hope he doesn't double-down with the AWB sunset.

[Congressman Billybob]

I will wade through the whole opinion as soon as I can. As often happens when Scalia and/or Thomas are in dissent, I will read the dissents first so I really know what's going on when I start slogging through the majority opinion.

The press reporting on a decision of this length will, as usual, vary from marginally competent to absolutely clueless. Others may get their news from newspapers, but I have long since given up intellectual training wheels.

John / Billybob

[ImpBill]

Tis rather amazing isn't it? And now the only way to get it fixed is to have the same group of spineless jerks that passed the bill write a new one and send it up to POTUS for signature. It's all about politics ... the acquisition and maintenance of power at any cost. Why would any of us think there is anything that is sacrosanct to these people? They trash the Constitution daily ... both parties and we sit back, print a few lines on FR, and take it.

How much longer? I wonder.

[July 4th]

And you don't believe the CFR involves the "manner" of holding elections?

A campaign is not an election. The "manner" of holding an election is the election itself, not the campaign. It refers to things like ballot access, registration, and party affiliation.

[NittanyLion]

Frankly, I'm surprised I said that about the override; I must have read it on that thread and copped it.

You're surprised? You made the same claim on this thread...

Or perhaps you just make any claim you think will support your case regardless of whether you know it to be true. Is that what you're doing here?

[muskogee]

You have my support, Mr. Hancock.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

You absolutely must be on meds, or need to take them. I've never observed anyone in such a deep delusional state for as long you have been on this thread.

[P-Marlowe]

Do you believe the Congress did not have the power to stop the Hitler Youth from organizing and giving speeches for the Fuehrer during World War II? Or that they cannot prevent Al Queda from recruiting within this country?

Non-Sequitor

Advertizing is NOT identical with speech and as a part of the manner of elections can be regulated.

If the advertisement contains speech, then it is speech. The power to control the manner of elections does not include the power to stifle the speech of those who are seeking office or those who support them. If the first amendment cannot protect speech regarding who is or is not allowed to rule over us, then the first amendment is a meaningless phrase in a meaningless document.

BTW, Your handle is fitting. You don't support free speech so your handle is "shut up and take it." Interesting.

[billbears]

It's about time you stopped taking potshots and trashing everybody and anything and put some CONCRETE PLANS on the table, bill.

Sorry but I could care less about your groupmindthink. It's quite evident, except the most partisan blind, that Republicans are doing nothing to limit the government, are doing nothing to 'roll back decades of government largesse', and in many instances are no less liberal than their Democrat counterparts.

I've offered my solution, you just don't like it. Quit voting for who someone in Washington tells you to vote for and vote for what you believe. The candidate I vote for will be the most conservative within who is running, whether that be the Democrat, Republican, Southern, or Constitutionalist Party. I actually take the privilege of voting almost as highly as the love of my state.

I don't vote for the alphabet but rather on what someone believes and what they stand for. How about you?

[hchutch]

As presently constituted, I agree. However, a one-justice shift changes that. And, as I have said elsewhere, maybe conservatives will get to work to take some sort of foothold against Big Media. It didn't take long for Fox News Channel to leave CNN and MSNBC in the dust. Why not push for a "Fox Evening News" to air every night? Why not find wealthy conservatives who would be willing to buy newspapers and eventually swing them to the right?

Would it not be a better idea to work for those shifts and even the playing field that the Left has had to itself for all too long?

[Sabertooth]

Ok .. what's the difference from taking and accepting our tax dollars??

Taxes are compulsory, so they aren't donations.

Political donations aren't compulsory, so they aren't "taken" in the same sense that taxes are. That's why I went with "accepted."

BTW .. any chance you are a lawyer?

Not a lawyer.

*I'm opposed to public financing of campaigns. That's just welfare for politicians.

**If you are against it .. how is it that above you said you are for "accepting" it??

I should have been more clear, and the terms are a little confusing in this parlance.

When you, as a member of the public, contribute to a campaign, that's a private contribution.

"Public financing" involves the federal matching funds that are recieved in that little $1 box on your tax return. It's a pool of money that election officials dole out if candidates agree to have certain rings through there noses regarding the time and the amount of their spending.

I'm for unlimited private contributions and no public financing.

So then I guess you don't have a problem with George Soros donating 15 million to get Bush out of office?

Not as a matter of principle, though I think Soros is a scumbag.

I'm for free political speech, including that of scumbags.

I also wouldn't have a problem if someone gave Bush the same amount.

I could be wrong .. but when were people forced to take the funds or mark the option on their tax return?

If I recall it's an option ... a choice

It is... for now.

It's the beachhead of the campaign finance reformers who want full public financing. Most of those on the Left who favor CFR are in this camp. They want to collect tax money (compulsory) and then have unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats orchestrate campaigns and elections based on whatever regulations are then in vogue.

The government should hold elections, not manipulate them.

[retrokitten]

I am wondering if she has been threatened.

I was thinking the same thing. Or bought off.

[Howlin]

I know when I'm being baited. You won. I didn't remember what I said.

You must feel so good right now, huh?

[Beck_isright]

"A lot of us don't need other people to tell us what to think."

Hopefully you can seperate listening to other's opinion and reading from your RNC fax flash.

[finnman69]

Acutally Free Republic woulld NOT fall under any of this. It's very clear...

Exemptions
The regulations at 11 CFR100.29(c)(1) through (6) exempt certain communications from the definition of “electioneering communication:”

• A communication that is disseminated through a means other than a television station, radio station, cable television system or satellite system. For example, printed media—including newspapers, magazines, bumper stickers, yard signs and billboards—are not included, nor are communications over the Internet, e-mail or the telephone;

[Howlin]

I don't see any NAMES in there, Bill.

Come on. There has to be somebody out there that you'd vote for.

[Howlin]

Ah, personal accusations. The last resort.

[Who is John Galt?]

The fact that the court issues a hair-brained decision upholding a blatantly unconsitutional law doesn't make it constitutional; it just makes it legally enforceable.

(I know one guy here who, if the court ruled that he was a potato, would swear it was entirely constitutional for the government to make french fries out of him... ;>)

[BureaucratusMaximus]

See! It continues. Did you take your meds this morning?