Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)
FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

Posted on 12/10/2003 7:09:03 AM PST by July 4th

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bcra; blackrobedictators; bush; bushscotuscfr; cfr; elitisttyrants; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; mccainfeingold; nyt; oligarchy; restrictfreespeech; scotus; tyrannyofthefew
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 1,941-1,949 next last
To: Miss Marple
Does this ban attack ads or ALL ads? Does this ban direct mailing (including sending videos)? Does it ban CABLE ads as opposed to networks? I need details, and so far no one is supplying them

Have no idea either, but the hyperbole is flowing like wine isn't it.

301 posted on 12/10/2003 8:16:25 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
Without the massive bombardment of propoganda just before the elections, not to mention the dirt and "gotcha" effect a day or couple of days before the election, this may actually really benefit the GOP greatly.

Do you honestly believe that the leftist media (like the Los Angeles Times, for example) will refrain from publishing "propoganda" and "dirt" in the days leading up to an election? Perhaps you should review some of the "news" that came out just prior to the California recall...

;>)

302 posted on 12/10/2003 8:16:44 AM PST by Who is John Galt? ("The founders DID NOT campaign nor run ads attacking their opponents" - justshutupandtakeit 12/10/03)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: July 4th
Wait....I thought this was supposed to be a genius move by Bush signing this since we all KNEW that SCOTUS would toss it......

This is pathetic. SCOTUS once again is the tyrants in black robes.

This law is unconstitutional and not worthy of being followed by me. If I'm doing some project that breaks the 60 day law, I won't care, and won't be going to jail for it either.

303 posted on 12/10/2003 8:16:53 AM PST by Dan from Michigan ("if you wanna run cool, you got to run, on heavy heavy fuel" - Dire Straits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #304 Removed by Moderator

To: Protagoras
Your guys

Who's "your guy"? Harry Browne?

305 posted on 12/10/2003 8:17:44 AM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I've never seen this level of stupidity on FR before.

Oops, I can't say that! Free Speech is prohibited!

LMAO!

There are significant political ramifications from this decision, and I have every confidence that the folks at the RNC (those that aren't dangling at the end of ropes hung around rafters right now) are revisiting their advertising gameplan to process these new rules.

Oh, and yes. We're DOOMED! LOL

306 posted on 12/10/2003 8:17:50 AM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Your guys passed the laws, the fact that two morons appointed by another moron and whom are cut from the same political cloth as your guys is irrelevant

LOL! Looks like you are in a corner.

BTW, it is funny how you dismiss Clinton's appointees for voting for this.

307 posted on 12/10/2003 8:18:27 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: rintense
But most of all, I blame Karl Rove, who I'm sure convince the President this would be overturned.

Did he convince the President that the law would be overturned, or did he convince him that, on balance, the law hurt the Democrats?

308 posted on 12/10/2003 8:18:44 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Get ready for the NRA radio network!

Or perhaps national "newspapers" that pop up and are mailed en mass, filled to the gills with advocacy positions cast as opinions and commentary, that only publish for 60 days every two or four years.

I would be willing to contribute to help do that just to tweak Big Brother's nose.

309 posted on 12/10/2003 8:18:52 AM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9; Dan from Michigan; All
Here and below is an article examining the implications of the NRA's plan to work around the unlawful BCRA restrictions.

The NRA’s deliciously absurd plan | Jim Babka

Many close observers of the Supreme Court expect a ruling in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA – better known as McCain-Feingold) case McConnell v. FEC before the High Court goes home for Christmas break on December 15.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the plaintiffs in McConnell, is already planning its next move. Even if only a threat, it’s a strategy you could easily imagine John Cleese of Monty Python fame coming up with – acting absurd to illustrate the absurdity of the law.

It’s a beautiful idea.

Under present law institutional media organizations like ABC or CNN, are able to say what they want about candidates and spend corporate funds to do so. But under the new BCRA law, the NRA is now banned from spending its corporate funds (just before elections) to say what they want to say about candidates using the same media outlets.

So over the weekend, the NRA’s executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told the Associated Press, “We're looking at bringing a court case that we're as legitimate a media outlet as Disney or Time-Warner. Why should they have an exclusive right to relay information to the public, and why should not NRA be considered as legitimate a news source as they are? That's never been explored legally.”

Well, almost never.

Congressman Ron Paul, et al. (Paul v. FEC), another plaintiff group in the McConnell case [BTW, Gun Owners of America was one of the plaintiffs in Paul v. FEC -- Law], denied that the government had the constitutional authority to regulate anyone, big or little, exercising their constitutional “press” freedoms. They argued that “Joe Mimeograph” (as one Justice cleverly titled the hypothetical citizen activist) has just as much constitutional right to Freedom of the Press as the New York Times does. On that theory, most of the campaign finance laws come tumbling down.

Meanwhile, the NRA itself only addressed the related issue of the discriminatory nature of conferring special privileges to the institutional media. They assumed the government had the power to regulate everyone, but argued that if the government was going to exempt the institutional press as a matter of legislative grace they had to avoid triggering Fifth Amendment prohibited discrimination by also exempting groups like the NRA.

The line between the institutional media and anyone else seeking to inform the public is quite tangled and increasingly less clear – despite Supreme Court attempts to settle the question. And the defendants in the McConnell case (the Brennan Center, Senators McCain and Feingold, Common Cause, etc.) all were quite clear that they intended to keep pushing the envelope with new legislation in future years. Justice Kennedy in particular seemed disenchanted by the endless stream of new cases.

Perhaps the NRA is engaged in the ultimate of comic parodies. If the Court persists in drawing such fine lines, the NRA appears all-too-willing to blur them – giving Justice Kennedy yet another case.

By acting absurd, the NRA garners comic and perhaps legal attention to the idea that incumbent politicians shouldn’t be drawing such lines. After all, politicians aren’t exactly neutral observers.

And if the Supreme Court insists on twisting the First Amendment so that there’s a discriminatory distinction between the institutional media and Joe Mimeograph, perhaps the best solution for individuals and groups like the NRA is to take the Paul plaintiffs’ argument to its logical conclusion – become the Media. “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”

Still, the best of all possibilities is that the Court rules that Congressman Paul and his friends are right and Freedom of the Press applies to everyone. The “Gordian Knot” of campaign finance law cannot be untangled – it should be cut. Not only should BCRA be overturned, but the limits and reporting requirements grudgingly approved in the landmark decision Buckley v. Valeo, should be scrapped as well. Only by getting the government out of the business of regulating Joe Mimeograph’s rights can Free Press rights truly be protected. Justice Kennedy’s apparent desire to see an end to such cases would be satisfied.

But no matter what the outcome of the McConnell case, the NRA’s Pythonesque potential next move is beautiful. If the majority of the Court insists on being absurd, the NRA will serve them up an even greater absurdity.

What a delicious possibility.

310 posted on 12/10/2003 8:19:02 AM PST by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

Comment #311 Removed by Moderator

To: Howlin
What makes you think Bush can get a conservative appointed to the Supreme Court? The history of this administration, and the Republicans in general, shows that they are unable or unwilling to stand up for principle.
312 posted on 12/10/2003 8:19:10 AM PST by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Who is John Galt?
Amen, John...the LA Times was NOT a newspaper in the weeks prior to the California election..they were an advocacy group....the media will run "campaign" ads in "news" formats.
313 posted on 12/10/2003 8:19:12 AM PST by Moby Grape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Dane
----Actually, the insane thing to do is to help Dean appoint two more SCOTUS Justices. Clinton's two appointees voted for this abomination.----

You, and a lot of other people, are missing the point. It was Bush's responsibility to see to it that the decision on CFR would never fall to SCOTUS in the first place, by vetoing the bill as soon as it landed on his desk. The veto -- which Bush has never used -- is one of the most important tools the president has, because one of the constitutional responsibilities of the president is to serve as a check on the legislature when it pushes through asininity like CFR.... and Bush abdicated that responsibility in the pursuit of a political advantage that has never, and will never, materialize.

I am hardly a one-issue voter, and I'll do whatever I can to help ensure that Howard Dean never comes within a hundred yards of the Oval Office. But on the particular issue of CFR, which strikes at the very foundation of constitutional free speech, consider it this way:

---A President Dean, as a hard-core leftist, would certainly have signed CFR.

---President Bush, as a self-described conservative who made certain promises about the issue during his campaign, did sign CFR.


Therefore, on the issue of free speech as it relates to political campaigning, it would make no difference if Howard Dean were president right now instead of George W. Bush.

And if that's not cause for conservative outrage, then Jesus, what is?

-Dan
314 posted on 12/10/2003 8:19:16 AM PST by Flux Capacitor ('Cause WE.... GOT.... THE BOMBS. Ooooooo-KAY?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Have I got something wrong here?Is is that you can run any kind of ad you want as long as you don't mention a candidate's name?
315 posted on 12/10/2003 8:19:40 AM PST by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
He's a Constitution minded President.

Oh yeah...that's why he signed the clearly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill. Any why he just signed a bill which significantly expanded entitlements (Medicare) that aren't constitutional in the first place. And while I agree with our effort in Iraq I'm going to point out that a "constitution minded" president would have had Congress pass an actual declaration of war first. While Bush is not nearly the enemy of the Constitution that Clinton was, Gore would have been, or any of the 9 dwarves could be, he certainly doesn't meet the description of "constitution minded."

316 posted on 12/10/2003 8:19:47 AM PST by Spiff (Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Yes he should have vetoed it .. but I sure as hell ain't going vote for Dean because Bush made a mistake

I'm not really fond of the UN controling all of the US

317 posted on 12/10/2003 8:19:54 AM PST by Mo1 (House Work, If you do it right , will kill you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
And they keep Advil in business
318 posted on 12/10/2003 8:20:25 AM PST by Mo1 (House Work, If you do it right , will kill you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
You notice I didn't get an answer to that question; they're just like the Democrats; all talk, no solutions.
319 posted on 12/10/2003 8:20:31 AM PST by Howlin (Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
"repeal of the First Amendment?"....C'mon, until now, I thought you were rather logical and balanced.....

Ya know, sometimes ya just got to tell it like it is. But you are right, they only repealed it when it matters, in the 2 months before an election. And to think that the prohibition on issue ads by citizens right before an election is not the repeal of the first amnedment is more illogical than anything I can think of.

No, I'm not unbalanced or illogical, I'm putting it in a way that can be understood. I'm sorry if that wounds your sensibilites.

320 posted on 12/10/2003 8:20:54 AM PST by Protagoras (Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 1,941-1,949 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson