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.

[PhiKapMom]

The Sky is Falling!

[woodyinscc]

If we had 9 more of him in the Senate right now, this thread would be moot.!!!

[TheEaglehasLanded]

I'm Sick of BUsh, his compassionate conservatism is nothing more than BIG GOVERNMENT WITH TAX CUTS, he says he is for STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS on the courts but applauds decisions like this one and the wretched 5-4 decision on AFFIRMative action that the a hole from MAssachusetts fixed by holding up a judge.

IRaq should be going better than it is, NEwt was right, we needed more troops ready at the beginning to subdue the country. FED UP WITH BUSH BUT DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE YET

[tomahawk]

Justice Scalia has it right: 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 inter- cepted 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. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohib- its the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corpora- tions, by use of their general funds; and forbids national- party use of “soft” money to fund “issue ads” that incum- bents find so offensive. To be sure, the legislation is evenhanded: It similarly prohibits criticism of the candidates who oppose Members of Congress in their reelection bids. But as everyone knows, this is an area in which evenhandedness is not fairness. If all electioneering were evenhandedly prohib- ited, incumbents would have an enormous advantage. Likewise, if incumbents and challengers are limited to the same quantity of electioneering, incumbents are favored. In other words, any restriction upon a type of campaign speech that is equally available to challengers and incumbents tends to favor incumbents. Beyond that, however, the present legislation targets for prohibition certain categories of campaign speech that are particularly harmful to incumbents. Is it accidental, do you think, that incumbents raise about three times as much “hard money”—the sort of funding generally not restricted by this legislation—as do their challengers?

[woodyinscc]

I went over to du to find out what they thought about this decision. One poster asked "should we be for this or against it" he was answered by another poster, "Rush Limbaugh is raving against this decision, we are for it" Nothing else needs to be said.!!

[Howlin]

Well, that's better than earlier today.

concerned about politics said that they were waiting for somebody to come read it to them.

[Hoverbug]

You go ahead and vote for Bush and send the message to him and the SC and everybody else that you'll support them, no matter what, as long as they aren't as bad as the alternative.

Conservatives know better though.

I get it quite well. The "hang" of this forum is conservative, not GOP.

Hb

[Mo1]

This thread is still going??

[tomahawk]

Justice Thomas has it right: "The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Never- theless, the Court today upholds what can only be described as the most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War."

[Howlin]

Here's some bad news for you:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1038108/posts

[tomahawk]

Political speech (involving the use of money to pay for speech through the mass media 60 days before an election) is now illegal in America, and those who engage in it will be imprisoned. What's next?

[sport]

It don't.

[tpaine]

It is up to every state to determine its own criminal law.

But said criminal laws must comply with our BORs individual protections.

So if North Carolina, New York, and Nevada reach different decisions on the subject, that is permitted by the US Constitution.

Simply not true according to the plain words of the 14th.

I know that answer will displease some people, perhaps even both of you. But I always start any discussion of political basics with the plain language -- or lack of language -- of the Constitution on that subject. John / Billybob 1,605

The USSC let stand a peculiar 'criminal law' about assault weapons in CA last week, Billy. -- Do you support CA's 'right' to prohibit such weapons?

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

...Hell, that only leaves 999...

Make that 998. I will gladly marching on the Mall. I will take the risk of going to jail.

It isn't this one ruling [as horrid as it is] which upsets me so. This ruling is the latest of many changing the balance of power between the elected and the electorate.

I am no legal or political mind by any means. I am nothing more than a private citizen who always thought the glory of this great nation is that the right to express my opinions without fear of government retribution. As long as I did not threaten anyone, I could say just about anything. Now I am told by the Supreme Court if I try express my views through the broadcast media (TV Advertising) before an election, I could be imprisioned.

This discussion has made me curious. Has there ever been a documented case of corruption on the Supreme Court? i.e. an opinion for a price? I am in no way inferring this happened here. I now find myself interested in the history of the court.

[Revel]

"OMG! Give it a rest. Jesse Helms was Senator Conservative.

Please quit before you're beaten to a pulp."

Once again I never said he was not. I just said I don't know.

I think I will give it up though before I get an ulser. Besides I have said all that matters. Feel free to lie about what people said all that you want now.

[Mo1]

The Sky is Falling!

Are we there yet?

[sport]

Probably not if he knows you.

[Technogeeb]

When going to jail is a possibility, the defendants are entitled to a JURY trial.

If the so-called Justices so openly ignore the First Amendment, what makes you think they will not equally ignore the Sixth amendment?

The 10th amendment has already fallen. The 2nd is essentially dead. The 4th is a shadow of its former self. With this decision, the 1st is weakened to the point of irrelevancy. Why would you possibly put faith in a government to abide by the provisions of the 6th?

And even if they did, the government could simply appeal, until the issue was ultimately before the same Supreme Court which has already decided upon their opinion in the matter. The response to any attempt to invoke the 5th amendment's guarantee against "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" will be met with an insistence that imprisonment is neither "life" nor "limb", therefore the restriction does not apply.

There is no constitutional solution to this problem; with both Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court allied in the matter, the only remaining solution is to either tolerate the injustice or invoke rule 308.

[Hoverbug]

Where's the bad news?

My message stands. You can tell the GOP hacks and operatives by reading this thread and see who is defending what went on today and still screaming "we gotta vote for the GOP".

If the shoe fits....

Hb

[onyx]

Yes, 9 more likely would have made it moot, but I want to see us elect 62, so that we can spare two of them should they "drift" left. Hard to count on yankees, particularly the New England breed.