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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[Howlin]

Hey, chum!

But there is one good thing: you know who is busy C&Ping his butt off!

[Protagoras]

No need to sue you. There is a sucker born every minute.

[Congressman Billybob]

Broadcast media MUST accept such an ad. They have no right to refuse it or censor it, as long as one of the 1,000 names promoting it IS a federal candidate. Therefore, with my name added, such an ad WILL be broadcast, if we organize this properly.

John / Billybob

[billbears]

He's not representing me so I have no say in what he does. If his constituency chooses to remove him then that's their business. As for Hillary clones, just look to North Carolina. We already have Elizabeth Dole, how much more punishment do you think we deserve?

[Howlin]

Uh huh.

[Protagoras]

Who are they? Name them please.

[Dane]

If you advocate 'principle over Constitution,' be prepared to defend Hillary Clinton's actions if she is ever elected President. (I can guarantee she will 'act on her principles,' rather than defend the Constitution.)

Well I will fight within the arena of political ideas to defeat Hillary.

I have already counted you out that you will be on my team.

[concerned about politics]

Who are they? Name them please.

Who? My time is limited for today, and I have a 56K dial up.
Make it quick.

[deport]

The problem is that incumbent Congress Critters will never feel a need to allow challengers to run ads to criticize them prior to election day.

---

Maybe, but if their supporting organizations such as NOW, NRA, Pro-Aborts, NEA, etc. decide they are being shutout of the process by being limited in who they can critize or support with ads the Congress Critters may just get a message to rewrite the law. jmo.

[El Gato]

They had a very partisan press back in those times. Every faction and party had their newspapers pushing their idea's and slamming the other side. They called each other all sorts of names I would bet. It was yellow journalism times, the press wasn't all that much professional.

Like they are now? All you say is true, but's it's also true that they passed the first amendment in spite of all that.

[Gritty]

There was no consensus from the American people that they wanted this... IMO, Congress voted AGAINST the will of the people for McCain-Feingold.

Frankly, the "American people" as a whole don't know squat about this Law, and could give a sh!t less. You won't hear a peep from them. All they know is this "eliminates campaign money corruption". Besides, it's the Shopping Season.

But, raise our cable rates 3%, tack $.50 onto our ATM fees or threaten our freewheeling access to porn - and watch the fireworks!

Demonstrably, the American people no longer deserve the freedoms we have. We have come to mistake "freedom" for "license" and think every sort of evil is good. We've become too stupid, lazy and self-centered to care and this Law and is a perfect example. We will soon lose all our freedoms for good, and collectively we probably deserve that fate.

It's a shame. It's been a pretty good 200 years, but nothing lasts forever. Our Founding Fathers did well to put this all together and have it last 200 years. Unfortunately, our human nature has taken over.

[NYC Republican]

I realize you didn't say all of that, but these are phrases that others said on this thread...

[k2blader]

Tell that to the President who signed it. He certainly didn't seem to mind.

Yep. He sure didn't need to sign it.

[Roscoe]

But, raise our cable rates 3%, tack $.50 onto our ATM fees or threaten our freewheeling access to porn - and watch the fireworks!

"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525 (2001), dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U. S. 514 (2001), and sexually explicit cable programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government." --JUSTICE SCALIA

[Protagoras]

All the DU people who you claim are here bashing Bush. Or did I misunderstand? That is your contention right? Name them.

[El Gato]

Now we do not have to worry about responding to last minute lies ginned up by the RAT ads.

No, only the lies ginned up in the NewYork Times, CNNAOLTIMEWARNER, CBS, and ABC editorial offices. Big whoop.

[concerned about politics]

There was no consensus from the American people that they wanted this... IMO, Congress voted AGAINST the will of the people for McCain-Feingold.

Oh yeh. There was overwhelming support for it. It was suppose to get corruption money out of government.

[k2blader]

Do you consider abortion to be "Constitutionally valid"?

[VRWC_minion]

If the Bill of Rights had intended an exception to the freedom of speech in order to combat this malign proclivity of the officeholder to agree with those who agree with him, and to speak more with his supporters than his opponents, it would surely have said so

As much as I wish to agree with him, he avoids an issue which he might deal with somewhere else.

This ban doesn't stop speech altogether, it places new restrictions on a medium that already has speech restrictions and instead of banning it fully, it imposes time restrictions.

Time restrictions themselves are often applied in various democratic forums. Publci hearings place restrictions on the length, place and mode of speech. Town meetings have rules for people to take turns, limits etc. Voting places have restrictions. The concept of providing order to the democratic process while still allowing a full public airing of views could be considered better free speech than the alternative which is chaos.

[NYC Republican]

So we may now safely add Sean Hannity to the list of hysterical knee-jerk foamers along with Rush Limbaugh, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. I anticipate George Will and Cal Thomas will join their ranks in due time. I'm honored to find myself on the same side of the debate with such an august group of shallow, irrational, emotion-soaked critics of this legislation.

If you know anything about me or my posts, there are no bigger fans of Rush (ok, perhaps ConservativeMan5) and Sean than myself. This may turn out to be a raw deal, but in terms of the '04 elections, it will benefit the GOP. Sean and Rush have an embedded interest in fighting this, as their careers may unfortunately be impacted by it to some degree, so it's in their interest to be a bit more shrill than usual.