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]

I am always happy to read new books on the Jeffersonian era or about Jefferson. Unfortunately, the more I learn about the man the more disappointed I am. He was a demi-god to me (like almost everyone else) until I started a serious study of the era and his role in it now he has feet of clay to say the least.

Your accusation wrt my "immunity" appears to be the result of your own projection.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nonsense, she could have been defeated had another candidate had the ability to do so. None did.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not at all. I believe in the concept of the Law of the Land which is firmly established within the Constitution.

Just because we don't like a law or a ruling does not mean we live under "tyranny." That is just silliness unworthy of you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

First of all there are nine justices who are performing the roles established for them under the constitution which was created and ratified by the sovereign American People. This People can change it should they desire and they have at times and will again no doubt.

This ruling is a product of the Constitution working AS the Founders envisioned.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Perhaps you never noticed that the Constitution does not require a residency requirement for election to the Senate. All that is required to go to Congress is that they live there WHEN ELECTED. Complain to the Founders or start a movement to change that prerequisite if it doesn't suit you.
I would probably support you there.

Liddy was elected because the People of North Carolina voted for her not because she was imposed upon them. While no smarter than any others no external forces could make them do what they didn't want to do. She may not have been the best candidate but that is something those voters must be charged with not the RNC.

In fact, NO Senator ANYWHERE has EVER been thrust upon the hapless voters in ANY state since the Seventeenth amendment was enacted. Not RFK, not HRC and not ED. In the latter's case she handily won the primary with votes from the state electorate.

One doesn't have to live in a State to understand what it needs since the needs of States are not all that different so that is a red herring anyway.

Personality is very important to voters if not to me or you.
It is a huge plus and difficult for better qualified in other areas candidates to overcome. Just having hair is very important and rarely does a bald man win an initial contest against a guy with a JFK head of hair. Is this right, fair or wise? Probably not but it is part of human nature not confined to any party.

If she is not what the state wants then it will vote her out next time. However, I will bet you right now that she will be re-elected should she run. Your idea of what your fellow North Carolinians' want is likely to be what YOU want and it is about as correct as me claiming my fellow Illinoisians want what I want.

[E.G.C.]

Well, that's just fine.

If you want to go ahead and act like the town clown, go ahead. It is you that is spreeading disinformation, not me. I have addressed this matter numerous times and I know what I'm doing. I know that it was never the founding father intent for goverment to put restirctions on people's activities.

You seem to think otherwise and your assertions on the constitution's aspect are wrong and you know full well it's wrong.

It's very diffcult to take you seriously with your false misconceptions and half-truths about the first amendment and it's concept.You're expecting us to believe that politcal speech wasn't what it was intended for. That's a bald-faced lie and you know it.

Everything I've said is accurate and true. you just can't for whaever reason seem to bring yourself to accept it as fact. What you're saying is not flying with me or anybody else here at Free Republic.

I think I've addressed this enough as it is. You can't handle it, that's just too bad.
Regards.

[azhenfud]

"This ruling is a product of the Constitution working AS the Founders envisioned."

No it is not.

"At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address.

So, that's what the founding fathers envisioned for the United States? I don't believe that. I hardly think they'd establish a government with the intentions of it becoming not much different than the "tribunal rule" they'd just declared independence from.

[azhenfud]

Oh, and BTW, Seven appear Senile.

[freedomcrusader]

While many here harken back to the Founders none seem to realize that allowing power seizures by unaccounted and unknown forces through soft money ads is nothing they would support NOT ONE of them.

You argue that the voters of NC didn't have Liddy Dole shoved down their throats, while at the same time absurdly claiming the unknown and unseen forces are seizing power through soft-money ads. The latter is of course, ridiculous.

If Liddy Dole wasn't shoved down the voters throats via the Republican machine (and soft money was legal in the 2002 elections), then soft money doesn't create anything a majority of voters don't want.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am not defending the decision merely trying to get some accuracy injected into the hysteria it has generated. Almost all those opposed have misstated what was decided and what its impact is. Virtually every opinion is extrapolation based upon insupportable assumptions. This does no good in trying to understand something. Nor do the personal insults because the insulter jumps to conclusions about the insulted's motives.

From the beginning of the Republic there has been an attempt to reduce the power of the rich and powerful over the electorate. Look at Jefferson's rhetoric if you don't believe me or Andy Jackson or Lincoln. This is a continuation of that design. Now the rich and powerful cannot fund these attack ads without accountability through secret funding at the last minute. This does not reduce the spread of democracy but increases it. And I don't believe any of the Founders would support the use by Unions and corporations of huge anonymous funding of deceptive or false ads against candidates with little or no chance of responding. From my understanding of their thoughts they wanted voting to proceed based upon accurate information not upon having the truth obscured or removed by a media blitz of lies.

Now the fog of RAT lies will be lifted and they will have to be accurately attributed to their sponsors. This is a good thing.

Nor is this a camel's nose in the tent situation any more than a law against murder is a camel's nose in the tent against freedom.

[Roscoe]

Really? What's the name of your PAC?

Oh, and a representative government is made up of representatives.

[azhenfud]

"Nonsense, she could have been defeated had another candidate had the ability to do so. None did."

Jibberish and flapdoodle amix. Some can still remember the RNC's endorsement of a particular candidate well before the primaries. If that endorsement hadn't been given until after the primary, those others would have better had an equal ability to challenge her at the polls. That's why "none did".

I remember.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently the posts regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts went unnoticed by you. They were voted on by many of the Founders. And they would have been ruled unconstitutional I BELIEVE though am not sure. They would be today I am sure.
And the Founders lived within states which placed far MORE restrictions on people including martial status, religious affiliation, imprisonment for debt, discrimination based upon sex, color, race etc.

What I know full well is not what you think I know so don't try and tell me what I know. I am not playing games or being the devil's advocate not having time for such luxuries. Nor do I care if you take me seriously or not though your claim not to rings hollow since you just would not respond if you didn't.

I have repeatedly stated that the first amendment is NOT absolute and there are many examples of speech being curtailed (more so in the past than today.)

Your statements have all been hyperbolic projections of what might happen but they are based upon false assumptions and misinformation about what this law entails not its actual meaning.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Of course it is what the Founders intended. When the Court makes a ruling which runs counter to what the People want then the Constitution can be changed to be consistent with what is desired. The meaning of the Law is NOT a popularity contest and was explicitly designed to be determined by the Court not the People.

Even if 99% of the people believe a law is constitutional while the Court says it isn't, it isn't. But that does not change the reality that the People have the power to change the Constitution. This is NOT a democracy and was explicitly designed NOT to be.

This government is NOTHING like the government of GB at the time of the Revolution to claim it is indicates a lack of awareness of what that government was or is just sheer silliness. We could not change THAT government or its laws we certainly CAN change THIS one.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Come on certainly Breyer, Souter, Thomas, Reinquist and Scalia do NOT appear senile.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Many of the soft money ads are paid for by anonymous contributors, they often pretend to be unassociated with the candidates or parties they support. I don't see the Founders supporting such things. All this law does is require accoutability and disclosure, nothing more.

BTW this law should prevent the "shoving down the throats" of hapless voters of "machine" selected candidates such as Liddy. Of course, nothing is funnier than the idea of a Republican "machine."

[justshutupandtakeit]

My political contributions are to Free Republic.

I have no idea what your other sentence is supposed to do or mean.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You're telling me that Liddy had NO challengers in the Republican primary? That is not what I do remember.

[freedomcrusader]

LOL! I agree that the idea of a Republican machine often seems worthy of a snicker!

So long as you realize that you have to backtrack on your Liddy Dole comments to keep the main thrust of your argument consistent.

I also favor full disclosure of contributors, an idea championed by none other than the conservative icon Alan Keyes (well, he's an icon to many on this board). Interestingly, Keyes also thought that campaign contributions should be limited to individuals ("No ballot vote, no dollar vote" was his mantra).

I still am repulsed by the idea that a group of like-minded citizens who incorporate to pool resources to advocate for an issue near and dear to their heart are restricted from saying anything about a candidate near an election. Why not just say that any "group" running ads, regardless of their mode of financial organization, must fully disclose all their contributors instead of outlawing speech by certain kinds of such organizations?

[bvw]

Well, there is a remarkable and unique library -- it would materials that cover Jefferson, source materials -- a walk from me, if you are ever in my town -- it's the starting location of the event shown on the back of the garden state quarter ... ask at Cumberland for "Bob", or at the Pizzeria next to it, and you shall likely be able to have a free coffee or two on me.

Of course, the same offer extents to all Freepers and Lepers of good behaviour.