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.

[rundy]

Freedom of political speech 1776-2003
who controls what?
Presidency- Rinos
US Senate- Rinos
US House- Rinos
Supreme Court- Rinos
majority of govornships- Rinos
I sick of republicans, next time I'm asked my party
affiliation I'm saying Libertarian - they may be anti war
but by christ they can read a piece of paper called the constitution

You are right on ConservativeFromGA
The whiney, guttless, spineless Republicans drive me nuts. Recently Orin Hatch was on the Sean Hannity show and he was crying like a little boob about the fact that the Democrats were fillibustering the judical appointments and they (the Republicans) couldn't do anything about it.

I too will disavow a Republican affiliation...Independent or Libertarian fits better.

By the way, what does: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." mean anyway?

[VRWC_minion]

Non sequitor. And the answer to your specific question is "no".

Are only laws you disagree with then unconstitional ? Or do you think the process of determining if a law is constitutional is only applies if it has the result you like ?

[mykdsmom]

The story of putting the frog in cold water and gradually turning up the heat comes to mind.

It's a sad day.

MKM

[Hacksaw]

will on of these 9 old $#&($ ever die?

Maybe 5 would do (just kidding).

[NittanyLion]

Are only laws you disagree with then unconstitional ? Or do you think the process of determining if a law is constitutional is only applies if it has the result you like ?

Actually, laws that contradict the Constitution are unconstitutional. I don't need to rely on politicians to tell me that, since I'm more than capable of reading the document on my own.

George Bush himself said this was unconstitutional.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Well this thread is about done, and what will happen?

Nothing, except:

The stupid thief's go to jail, and the smart ones get elected.

BigMack

[hellinahandcart]

Every network is doing this, to the detriment of public understanding of what is actually happening out there.

I've had FOX on for hours and the only information they've given me could fit on the crawler. Which is where it is now. OOO wait! They're about to go to Judge Dwayne, whoever he is.

Where's Judge Napolitano? Where's Mitch McConnell (poor guy's probably off having a heart attack)? Where's the analysis? Sheesh, someone could have read 300 pages by now...

[VRWC_minion]

But you can be assured it will always be for a conservative candidate

who meets the Ivory Soap test for purity.

[MineralMan]

"George Bush himself said this was unconstitutional.
"

Then he signed it into law. But, hey, it was all part of the strategery.

[Sir_Ed]

"f you advocate 'principle over Constitution,' be prepared to defend Hillary Clinton's actions if she is ever elected President."

Actually, all she'd have to do is change her registration to Republican, then she'd be able to do whatever she wanted and the criticism would be muted!

Ed

[MineralMan]

"I've had FOX on for hours and the only information they've given me could fit on the crawler. Which is where it is now. OOO wait! They're about to go to Judge Dwayne, whoever he is.

"

I'm office-bound, so I haven't seen any news. My bet, though, is that they'll all just mention it, say there's some controversy, then jump back to the celebrity court cases.

And then there's the wedding tonight. Watch for lots of coverage of that. Feh!

[Dolphy]

Where did you think all the hate Bush posts came from?

What a surprise, huh?

[proud American in Canada]

"though others elsewhere in the country could also do the same thing. "

We need to somehow make this into a nation-wide movement, to get other Senators/Congressmen to get on board with this.

[Lancey Howard]

Where are all the FReepers who assured us it would be struck down??

Here's one of them. Sorry.
I had no idea what a disgraceful pack of corrupt scumbags we have on this Supreme Court.
I am very, very sorry.

[Sir_Ed]

"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."

Add my name to the list...

Ed

[Congressman Billybob]

By definition, the in-your-face ad cannot be run at earliest until less than 30 days remain until the primary election. So in North Carolina (the revised election law is now in the legislature and still subject to another constitutional challenge), that deadline is about seven months away. You can bet your bippy I'll keep my friends on FreeRepublic posted on that.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[VRWC_minion]

George Bush himself said this was unconstitutional.

No he didn't. Second, what section does it say that your opinion about whether a law is constitutional counts ?

[Burkeman1]

Having read over the body of this thread I see the usual hysterics on both side of this issue have been displayed.

No- the CFR will not abolish forums like FR, won't suprress individual free speech, won't mean neighborhood spies reporting on what you say to some secret police.

What it will do is even further limit the scope of political debate in this country. It will further solidify the two party strangle hold on this country. And it will even more professionalize the position of "politician" to an even narrower few. Only vast established organizatins with already existing billions behind them will be able to enter the political arena. Under CFR only the establishment connected or the extremeley personally wealthy (and thus establishment) will be able to enter the political arena. To just make sure you are in compliance with the various campiagn laws means you have to have a legal team that you pay hundreds of thousands to every year.

This law is soft totalitarianism. It keeps the average citizen or grassroots movements from even entering the political process. Supression of alternative poltical voices through the over bureaucratization of the political process.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Statement by the President
www.whitehouse.gov/ ^ | March 20, 2002 | GEORGE BUSH

Posted on 03/20/2002 4:56:41 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK

Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system.  The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions.  I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

###

From a year and a half ago to this ! I remember screaming about this when it first hit the table i cant find my first LOUD POST on the subject i think it got canned when they changed servers and it had a scant few replies {no one cared then why care now?} /Sarcasm/

[MineralMan]

"This law is soft totalitarianism. It keeps the average citizen or grassroots movements from even entering the political process. Supression of alternative poltical voices through the over bureaucratization of the political process."

Bingo! Politics over the Constitution. Wins every time.