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.

[goodnesswins]

I'm waiting for details, too...and like others have said....the workarounds are already being placed....kinda like the IRS laws.....LOL

[Miss Marple]

If I remember correctly, there was a veto-proof majority for this in the Senate. So a veto wouldn't have stopped this. McCain and the media had built up too much public pressure for the Senate to stand against it.

Now, the question is how to work under these new rules, whatever they are. The first test of this will be the Rat primaries. How are they going to compete with each other without attack ads? It should be a fascinating spectacle.

[Dane]

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

And they really stopped Schwarzenegger from winning.

[aristeides]

I agree this law may on balance benefit the Republican Party. That's no reason to violate the Constitution and individuals' rights. And I'm not at all sure the law will benefit conservatism.

[Dan from Michigan]

BTW - Here's an easy trick to get around campaign finance laws

Form a PAC, donate thousands of dollars to it, and 'split' the donations in half by "trading checks" with your buddies. "Split" the $50,000 among enough people to be the 'legal limit'.

Not that I condone that or anything.

[Captain Kirk]

So Bush can depend on you to vote for him come hell or highwater? Hence, he can safely ignore anything and everything you say.

[hellinahandcart]

Some of you sound just like libs on this thread, with this shrill hyperbole... Come on, aren't you over-reacting?

Do you think Clarence Thomas is overreacting? Read #280.

If you think Clarence Thomas is engaging in shrill hyperbole, something is WRONG with you.

[Howlin]

What makes you think Bush can get a conservative appointed to the Supreme Court?

60 votes.

[onyx]

I have weeded through every post with pits stops of sanity along the way, thanks to you and a few others.

[Who is John Galt?]

...the media will run "campaign" ads in "news" formats.

Anyone who suggests differently is asleep at the switch...

;>)

[ArneFufkin]

You must be softer than I thought if you think I'll ever avoid confrontations with people like you

No, you're the crossdressing Libertarian I'M going to avoid. It's a disease prevention thing.

But you go ahead and post tripe to this forum just like you always have. For the next ten minutes or whatever time we have left for free speech in Gulag America.

[Moby Grape]

Who won is not the point...WHAT THEY DID and what they WILL DO is the point...this ruling gives even MORE power to a totally corrupt media..as if placing limits of free speech wasn't enough.

[freeeee]

aren't you over-reacting?

No, I'm not. A lot of restrictions of freedom have been suffered in this allegedly free country, some of them more damaging than others.

But being thrown in jail for criticizing politicians before an election is over the line in the sand that distinguishes free countries from others.

Honestly, if you took the label off this country and simply described its characteristics to an outsider there is no way it could be judged free, not with this restriction on one of the most sacred and important of rights.

So I say again (while I still can):

THIS IS NO LONGER A FREE COUNTRY.

[rintense]

AF, how my life has/will change is inconsequential. If you go read the Constitution, you will see how the lives of ALL OF US have changed- including those who would want to voice their political views against a candidate. If I as an individual, am part of a larger group, a special interest group, am denied the right to voice a collective political opinion, then I, as an individual, am being denied my individual right to free speech.

Go read the first amendment again. And then read the SCOTUS ruling.

[Howlin]

Have you seen their numbers lately?

[MEG33]

Is it that you can run any ad you want if you don't mention a candidate's name?

[goldstategop]

The liberal media is exempt from the law's onerous restrictions. They were after all the main boosterers of CFR. Only they will have the right to say what they want but its basically a privilege. To deter "corruption," Congress can take it away from them at a future date. Nothing in the SCOTUS ruling says Congress has to give special treatment in terms of CFR to the establishment media. And if it gets out of line, they can't do anything about it. In a way for all my anger at the rape of the Constitution by the political class and now the SCOTUS, I just hope to live to see the sight of the media being hoist one day on its own petard.

[Law]

It's not posted yet on the Supremes website and it's not on findlaw yet. Then again, I have to be in the right mood to plow through 300 pages of legalese.

Those who are in the mood can find most of the opinions, including the majority, at the Election Law Blog. I'm sure they'll post the remainder shortly.