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]

Maybe in your delirium you missed the FACT that the "press" is TOTALLY unaffected by this law.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Laws are not challenged by taking them to Congress or to the President. Laws are challenged by taking them to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT is the final arbiter according to the US Constitution. You think it works some other way?

[justshutupandtakeit]

The presumption in the Constitution is that Congress passes a law which becomes valid and in operation when the president signs it. What do you think happens? It remains valid until someone challenges it in a court filing. What do you think happens? Then the courts rule upon it one way or another until it goes all the way to the SC or it declines to change a lower court ruling. What do you think happens?

Why have I never seen the headline "South Carolina legislature declares federal Income Tax law unconstitutional" OR "Massachusetts legislature declares federal census law void" ?

You have often claimed that the Secessionists legitimately violated the Union though Secession was patently unconstitutional. Why so picky now? As regards your absurd example should such a ridiculous thing happen it would immediately be challenged and declared void by the courts.

Why would you waste your time arguing with one so "mindless" as I? Obsession, fascination, a life boring beyond belief?
Funny I found a picture of you at the bottom of that barrel. It stayed there after I came up.

[Eastbound]

"Candidates are NOT the "government.""

Where did I ever get the idea that this was called the 'Incumbent Protection Act?' The government is the U.S. Constitution. The act protects those who work for government.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress has passed laws restricting speech in certain instances such as when groups assisted National enemies; it has every right to do so even if those incapable of understanding simple matters chose to ignore those instances.

Press ads are unaffected by the Law thus freedom of the press is not abridged. (Does YOUR Constitution mention freedom of television and radio?)

Selecting the unbanned format allows any speech against anyone at any time on any subject so freedom of speech is unaffected.

Public ads can be run at any time merely by forming the proper vehicle for doing so. Just have to keep ignoring the FACTS don't you? Hysterical hyperventilating is just so much more fun.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It does nothing of the sort. Any "protection" it provides is given to both incumbent AND challenger.

One would presume that incumbents are the ones with the most money and the greatest ability to run these last-minute sneak attacks at any rate. Show me what I am missing about that.

[Roscoe]

Nothing prevents anyone from criticizing Congress.

Liar.

[Roscoe]

Any "protection" it provides is given to both incumbent AND challenger.

Scalia has already refuted that lie.

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? See FEC, 1999–2000 Financial Activity of All Senate and House Campaigns (Jan. 1, 1999–Dec. 31, 2000) (last modified on May 15, 2001), http://www.fec.gov/press/ 051501congfinact/tables/allcong2000.xls (all Internet ma- terials as visited Dec. 4, 2003, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Or that lobbyists (who seek the favor of incumbents) give 92 percent of their money in “hard” contributions? See U. S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), The Lobbyist’s Last Laugh: How K Street Lob- byists Would Benefit from the McCain-Feingold Cam- paign Finance Bill 3 (July 5, 2001), http://www.pirg.org/ democracy/democracy.asp?id2=5068. Is it an oversight, do you suppose, that the so-called “millionaire provisions” raise the contribution limit for a candidate running against an individual who devotes to the campaign (as challengers often do) great personal wealth, but do not raise the limit for a candidate running against an individ- ual who devotes to the campaign (as incumbents often do) a massive election “war chest”? See BCRA §§304, 316, and 319. And is it mere happenstance, do you estimate, that national-party funding, which is severely limited by the Act, is more likely to assist cash-strapped challengers than flush-with-hard-money incumbents? See A. Gierzynski & D. Breaux, The Financing Role of Parties, in Campaign Finance in State Legislative Elections 195–200 (J. Thomp- son & S. Moncrief eds. 1998). Was it unintended, by any chance, that incumbents are free personally to receive some soft money and even to solicit it for other organiza- tions, while national parties are not?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Why don't you show me the section of that law which prevents criticism of Congress then dimwit?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Incumbents can raise more hard money, true but they can raise more soft money as well. So it does not give any more of an advantage.

Only around 1% of incumbents were voted out of office last election. There could hardly be a more secure group CFR or no CFR.

[Eastbound]

Why is everyone in an uproar over this if it isn't a case of 'if it's not broke, don't fix it?'

Personally, I don't think it's broke. Anything that McCain and the other democrat is involved in is suspect up front.

According to this story, "the Democrat committees raised about $246 million in soft money in the last election cycle, compared with $250 million for the Republicans."

Looked like an even playing field to me. It's anti-term limit legislation, isn't it? Is that your preference as well? Even at the cost of assaulting A1?

[Roscoe]

dimwit

Leftist.

Scalia:

People who associate who pool their financial resources for pur- poses of economic enterprise overwhelmingly do so in the corporate form; and with increasing frequency, incorpora- tion is chosen by those who associate to defend and promote particular ideas such as the American Civil Liber ties Union and the National Rifle Association, parties to these cases. Imagine, then, a government that wished to suppress nuclear power or oil and gas exploration, or automobile manufacturing, or gun ownership, or civil liberties and that had the power to prohibit corporate advertising against its proposals. To be sure, the individuals involved in, or benefited by, those industries, or interested in those causes, could (given enough time) form political action committees or other associations to make their case. But the organizational form in which those enterprises already exist, and in which they can most quickly and most effectively get their message across, is the corporate form. The First Amendment does not in my view permit the restriction of that political speech. And the same holds true for corporate electoral speech: A candidate should not be insulated from the most effective speech that the major participants in the economy and major incorporated interest groups can generate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Scalia is wrong on this one and a corporation created for economic reasons is NOT the most effective for political purposes.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't see "everyone" being upset about this though the usual suspects are loud in their opposition. I tend to agree with the if it ain't broke don't fix it philosophy and never supported the passage of this law but see little apocolyptic about it.

It is hardly "anti-term limit" since the only constitutional term limiting for federal offices is by the electorate which apparently does not care to vote these bastards out once they are elected. About 1% of the incumbents for the Congress were defeated last cycle. That will not be changed for better or worse by this legislation.

Nor is there any true impairment of the 1st amendment by it except for those too stupid to do the minimal manuvering necessary to say what one wants to at anytime.

Some people around here are in a permanent state of panic which makes for fun but impedes the site being taken seriously by serious-minded, thoughtful observors.

[Eastbound]

"About 1% of the incumbents for the Congress were defeated last cycle. That will not be changed for better or worse by this legislation."

Well, that's just the point. There will be no way for it to change for the better with this in place.

"Nor is there any true impairment of the 1st amendment by it except for those too stupid to do the minimal manuvering necessary to say what one wants to at anytime."

Not altogether true. With the camel's nose in the tent, if wouldn't take but a couple of election cycles for those manuverings to be outlawed as well.

"Some people around here are in a permanent state of panic which makes for fun but impedes the site being taken seriously by serious-minded, thoughtful observors."

Why not stop wasting your talents here having fun when you could be educating the justices who wrote dissenting opinions? Clearly they are the mis-informed ones, right?

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have not read all the dissents but what was posted from Scalia is not worthy of him. It makes inaccurate statements about the effects of this law.

How do you manage to get out from under the bed with all those boogie men lurking about ready to do you in?

Gee, just think without this law maybe 2% of the House incumbents would go down to defeat. The Republic is just sooo screwed by this.

[Eastbound]

"I have not read all the dissents but what was posted from Scalia is not worthy of him. It makes inaccurate statements about the effects of this law."

So does it or does it not put the camel's nose in the tent?

"How do you manage to get out from under the bed with all those boogie men lurking about ready to do you in?"

You got it wrong, Maharashi. I AM the boogie man.

"Gee, just think without this law maybe 2% of the House incumbents would go down to defeat. The Republic is just sooo screwed by this."

Two percent one cycle, 4 per cent the next, and first thing you know we just might have a restored Republic again. You against that?

BTW, I note that you are going to great lengths to re-educate all us lesser-endowed on Free Republic. Any converts yet?

[Eastbound]

Ah Hah! Nose in the tent!

[Roscoe]

a corporation created for economic reasons is NOT the most effective for political purposes.

Thanks for the non sequitur.

[Who is John Galt?]

"The presumption in the Constitution is that" it actually means what it says. And it says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of sppech, or of the press..."

It's simple English: what part, precisely, do you fail to understand?

;>)