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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The SEdition Acts constitutionality was never challenged so the Court never ruled on its constitutionality. Now did it?

[El Gato]

It does limit campaign contribution and television and radio broadcast advertisements. I don't see anything in the clear, standard words of 1st amendment about those.

Speech on TV or radio is still speech. There is some justification for the feds to regulate broadcast TV, because the signals can't help but cross state lines, and because there is a relatively limited ammount of bandwidth, or there was before the UHF channels came along. (But the principal was put in place before TV, when AM radio, which has more range and less useable station slots available than even VHF TV). No justification at all for regulating what you can say on your local cable system, but this law does that. Naked ladies are OK, but critising politicians is not? No justification at all for regulating the political content, in fact a prohibition on doing just that. Regulating the frequencies, power, location and other technical factors is a reasonable exercise of the commerce clause.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Don't you mean Irksome Bowels, Ickes is from New York.

[El Gato]

ANY ad can be run at ANY time with ANY content as long as it is funded with hard money. How does this crimp anyone other than the stupid?

Hard money is money donated to the candidate, correct? It's limited in amount on a per person basis, to an amount that wouldn't buy you a 10 second spot. Besides what if I don't want to donate to any candidate, but do wish to oppose (or praise) one or more of them, or merely educate the public to their stance on a particular issue? That I cannot do under the law. Political speech is restricted at the very times it would be most effective, especially in a representative government such as ours, where the electorate has, by design, no direct input into "public policy" matters, but can only influence the government through it's election of public officials.

[El Gato]

Election CAMPAIGNS are part of an election.

Not directly they are not. They are a continution of political discourse (speech) prior to an election.

The parties and the government are too intertwinned in the election process as it is, IMHO. I would pass an amendment that would prevent any official governmental recognition of political parties. That is, they would not control primaries, although they could hold their own, and agree to only put one cannidate forward for the "real"/governmental primary. They would not get special previliges in Congress, due to belonging to this or that party. There would be no "majority leader" or "minority leader". After all the Constitution does not mention, nor even anticipate any such recognition.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those laws were never challenged. The Court would have ruled on them had they been challenged, it had nothing to do with weakness as it had previously ruled on constitutionality of other laws.

[justshutupandtakeit]

If anyone knew about the rule of few over many it would be Jefferson. After all that is what he practiced his entire life.

[justshutupandtakeit]

How the hell does ANYONE get thrust on a state? Unless I am mistaken Liddy got 65-70% of the vote. I doubt that there are that many robots in NC willing to do as told.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Judicial review was accepted by state courts as early as the 1780s. Article III, Section 2 makes no sense without the concept of judicial review.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since you are a slave get you a$$ over to my house and clean it.

[billbears]

How the hell does ANYONE get thrust on a state?

I don't know you tell me. Money and ads were pouring into this state for Dole six months before the primaries. By December of that year, it was a forgone conclusion that Mrs. Dole was going to be the candidate. Again, months before the primary. Local news offered polling based on who the voters would vote for between Bowles and Dole by January, again months before the primary.

At least Bowles had the decency to acknowledge those he ran against. I don't think Dole even mentioned her competition, much more qualified than she herself was, the entire time

I don't want Karl Rove, President Bush, the RNC, or any other national organization choosing well in advance of the primaries who I'm going to vote for or against in state races in the general election.

[Who is John Galt?]

Your posts always indicated that you were better at writing fiction...

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

All the more reason to elect officials who will nominate constructionist judges, and a Senate that will confirm appropriate nominees.

Absolutely true. Let me know what you think when you've had a chance to look over the opinion...

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

The SEdition Acts constitutionality was never challenged so the Court never ruled on its constitutionality. Now did it?

What are you suggesting - that no law can be unconstitutional unless the high court rules it to be so?

(I can hardly wait to hear this one... ;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

Judicial review was accepted by state courts as early as the 1780s. Article III, Section 2 makes no sense without the concept of judicial review.

If you want to discuss "judicial review," perhaps you should get together with tpaine. The two of you can exchange circular arguments...

(By the way, I don't believe you ever replied to Post #160... ;>)

[FirstPrinciple]

I will invoke a principal that has not been in vogue for close to 150 years. It is called nullification. The Alien and Sedition Acts were nullified in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written by Jefferson and Madison in protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. However, the point is nullification is extremely mute after the Civil War. The belief in nullification was common before the 1860's because it was widely believed that union of the states was a voluntary one, and the states still retained their sovereignty. Nullification was routine, and if I remember correctly one of the governors of PA nullified a federal court order and called in state troops to stop the execution of it. So much for Bill Pryor for actually understanding states rights.

[El Gato]

the DWI report regarding Bush was saved for maximum damage. Voters reacted emotionally with few facts and without the entire story. Now, if there is damaging information the card will have to be played early on. If its truly bad it will stick. If its just a dirty trick, it will pass to the memory bin by November.

Such reports will be issued as press releases, or just by some reporter who talks to someone, they will be deemed "news" and thus not subject to the restrictions. However if your group wanted to reply to the accusations, either because the candidate was one who consistently supported your group's position, or because the "allegations" dealt with something of interest to your group, your group could not make that statement, or at least could not get it out, except at the suffrage of the major "news" networks.

[VRWC_minion]

If you wish to ignore our constitutional gov't be my guest. The law is the law even if you don't like it.

[aristeides]

Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court had overturned Acts of Congress as unconstitutional in only two cases: Marbury v. Madison, and Dred Scott. Marbury v. Madison was the first of these, in 1801.

[El Gato]

Supreme Court Upholds 'Soft Money' Limits

Notice how they don't even mention the limit on third party political speech. Not even so far as to use it to bash the NRA, which was filed a "friend of the Court" brief in the case. This headline was pretty much the same, maybe identically the same, as the one in the major San Antonio paper, I suspect the story wasn't either, but I haven't read that yet, and probably won't.