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.

[NYC Republican]

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...

Of course not, but we still have 3 major venues... FOX News, talk radio, and Bush and his bully pulpit. This will more than neutralize the Dims IMO.

[onyx]

"A crossdressing Libertarian..."

ROFLMAO!

[Sabertooth]

Meanwhile our side wants ALL or NOTHING. They don't , and never will, understand that things have to be done slowly or the Sheeple will not allow it to be done at all.

Really, this is such a tired argument.

If you believe in freedom of political speech, then you'd want previous campaign finance laws overturned, save for a few full disclosure provisions. The complaint here is not that we didn't get all of what we want, it's not even that we got none of it. The complaint is that the enemies of free speech won an incremental victory, and our side enabled them to do that.

The mantras when this CFR bill was passed and signed were that this was one of the matters where we'd "take the Democrats issues away!(™)." and "the SCOTUS will throw it out."

The problem is that this issue never had traction with the electorate, so we had no reason to want to take it away, and now the SCOTUS has upheld significant portions of the CFR's restrictions on free political speech

The Liberals have always understood the idea of incremental politics .. just move things slowly the way you want them .. take your defeats here and there as long as the overall movement continues.

This is not an incremental victory for conservatism, it's a shot in the foot, and an affront to the First Amendment.

The problem with too many Republicans is that they define incrementalism by the same yardstick the Democrats do: incremental victories for the Left.

[Moby Grape]

Damn it, the fact the LA Times did not succeed is NOT THE POINT...the fact that they have been given MORE power to do it by judges who rule AGAINST the Constitution is the POINT.

[Protagoras]

Voting for what? Are you mentally incompetent? Don't answer that, it is obvious.

In not in a corner, but you need to be in a padded cell. The President signed the LEGISLATION. It was a bi-partisian incumbent protection law, which was agreed to by the imbeciles on the SCOTUS. Some of which were appointed by another guy who is in total agreement with Bush and the rest of them. Now climb back into your drug addiction.

[dixie sass]

FYI

[rintense]

or did he convince him that, on balance, the law hurt the Democrats?

If that is the case, and I hope to high Heaven it isn't, then Rove sold out the Constitution (and American people) for political gain. He would be no better than liberals we bash for usurping the Constitution.

[ArneFufkin]

I will ask you again.

How has your life changed TODAY? How will your life be changed going forward? What is your injury?

How are you a victim here?

[jeremiah]

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result............ right?

[sinkspur]

Your attempt to deflect the attention from the Republicans and change the subject is quite predictable.

As is your ranting and raving.

I'm waiting for you to truly snap a twig any day now.

[NYC Republican]

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

True, but it backfired, big time. Look at the backlash they received, and the margin of victory for Arnold. It would make other media outlets think twice before engaging in this disgraceful behavior.

[Romulus]

And your bright idea is what?

Well, my options are limited, as you so charmingly point out. I think a good and sane place to start would be by acknowledging the manifest truth: that this country has been betrayed by those entrusted with its protection. Recovery can't begin till you admit your problem is out of control. Unfortunately, most addicts first have to hit rock bottom -- which is where your desperate attachment to this suicidal habit of blind loyalty is taking us all.

One thing I won't be doing is whoring myself out as cheerleader for liars and scoundrels.

[Moby Grape]

I wager now that complaints WILL be filled from the left, claiming that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News are engaged in activity in violation of CFR law.

[concerned about politics]

All the money that is allowed to come through has to be from individuals only, not corporate or PAC money.
Is this right? Hillary's PAC money is now illegal?

[Howlin]

Can they run Bush attack ads?

[spunkets]

" This is an Ignorance Reduction Act in fact."

No it's not. Most folks are too busy working for a living to follow and understand all that's going on. That is rightfully so, because folks do have to focus on what's important. This law is a substaital beginning to complete government control of information presentation and access. It is a blatent violation of the 1st Amend in the Bill of Rights. It was conjured up by the socialists, passed as a law by the Congress, signed by the President and "validated" by the SCOTUS in clear violation of the plain English of the Bill of Rights.

[PhiKapMom]

You have it right -- you deal with the hand you are dealt and work around the law! People are going off the deep-end once again without thinking!

Plans are in place so people just need to take a deep breath and chill out!

If Pres Bush had vetoed this bill the outcry would have far exceeded any possible gain. Too many glass half full people commenting all the time! You can now give $2000 instead of a $1000 so that was a plus, but guess that doesn't matter.

[rintense]

I answered your question. Yet, you have absolutely refused to even address the points I made. If you want to hide behind the victim statement, then you clearly are missing the bigger picture.

[hellinahandcart]

They live for this stuff.

*I* do not live for this stuff. I would never have imagined I'd have to experience "this stuff" in my lifetime.

Yet here I am experiencing it, and it's because Bush signed the damned thing.

I thought it was a clever strategy at the time, but I was wrong and so was he. We should have known from the crappy decisions last year that this court cannot be trusted to follow the constitution.

[NeoCaveman]

FNC is saying the money part is being upheld .. they are still reading through the 300 page opinion

It's not Rita Cosby reading it, or is it?