Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[Dane]

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.

You're correct as usual. Will this affect the Iowa "caucus" since I beleive the law said 30 days before a "primary".

[Protagoras]

Your attempt to deflect the attention from the Republicans and change the subject is quite predictable. One thing we know for sure is who was responsible for this.

[CMAC51]

>> It appears more likely with this ruling that we will have a Democrat Prtesident and a Democrat controlled Congress. <<

Have you been paying attention to what is going on in the fund raising arena. The Democrats are getting their clocks cleaned because of CFR. Sure, they are trying end runs around it, i.e. Soros, but that will backfire on them if the Republicans campaign as the party of the people vs the party of the special interests. That reversal wouldn't have been possible before CFR. The Dems have painted themselves into a corner.

The 60 day limit is crap and we don't know if it is struck down or not, but even that puts more handcuffs on the Dems than the Pubbies because the Dems will be relying on organizations outside the party to carry their water.

I hate most of the CFR and would prefer to see it knocked out, but also see who is going to be hurt the worst by it.

[deport]

Yes, Congress could (but won't) change the limit on free speech that this abomination of a law has brought...

---

Glad you know that definitively. I don't. If this Act impacts their ability to blast their opponent, their major supporters ability to blast their opponent then don't be so sure that it won't be changed at some point... After all isn't it one of the major political ploys to drop innuendo, accusations, etc against your opponent a few days prior to the election so that he/she doesn't have time to respond and clear it up?

[pabianice]

I can't wait for the White House response to this ruling...

[Kevin Curry]

And they really stopped Schwarzenegger from winning.

That the LAT didn't succeed in Schwarzenegger's case doesn't mean than a similar attack would not suceed in, say, Bush's case.

A bad idea is a bad idea regardless of whether it benefits you from time to time.

[Mo1]

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

No he can't ignore anything and everything

But hey nice try in putting words into my mouth

[Howlin]

ROFLMAO!

[July 4th]

This law is unconstitutional and not worthy of being followed by me.

This does not apply to you personally, only your issue advocacy group. Anyone here can still walk into a TV station, cut a check from their personal funds and run an attack ad.

Not that I'm defending this total piece of crap from the court, but the decision only affects groups, not you personally.

[hellinahandcart]

MY mistake, that's a J Thomas, not a C.

But the last paragraph is dead on.

[dixie sass]

I do believe that you are right! A test case for the 1st amendment. Looks like we are the ones that are going to lose, not the politicians...

Our rights are not being eroded slowly, they are systematically being taken away. Not by congress but by the Supreme Court and the SC is not supposed to be making law and yet they are doing it.

[Moby Grape]

You presume enough conservative can be elected to push law through both houses...the odds of getting conservatives elected just took a serious blow with this hideous ruling.

[deport]

I need details,

---

LOL.... don't sweat the small stuff.

[finnman69]

Ok can someone clear it up for me. According to the law post SCOTUS decision, can moveon.org still produce attacks ads for radio and tv ads 60 days in, but noone else can?

[Dane]

Who won is not the point...WHAT THEY DID and what they WILL DO is the point..

Yes it is. You said the LA Times has all the power now. They tried to smear Arnold. It didn't work, probably due to talk radio and the internet. Sure they will try it again, but the precednt is against them as of now.

[Miss Marple]

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

I have no idea. Apparently most people here don't either, but at least I am willing to admit it!

[rintense]

You know, I tried to rationalize why Bush signed this law, solely based on the idea that the SCOTUS would shoot it down. I posted over and over again that it didn't matter that the President signed it- it would be ruled unconstitutional. I backed the wrong horse- and put faith in the wrong people. I should have put faith in my President to uphold the Constitution. Like I said, I backed the wrong horse.

If there is a strategy here that the Bush Admin is trying to create, someone please explain it to me.

[sinkspur]

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.

Let's do that, then. Then maybe dem Messicans will stay on their side of the fence.