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]

You notice I didn't get an answer to that question; they're just like the Democrats; all talk, no solutions.

Yep, like I said... shrill... engaging in hyperbole... criticizing, but offering no ideas of their own... Sound JUST like the libs to me!

[finnman69]

agreed..what is a 'political ad'? What about a pro-America ad, or an ad on Iraq? Is that political, or is it just informative?

[Howlin]

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.

Apparently it was upheld, but I agree with the rest of your post.

[Sabertooth]

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.

Well, we all make mistakes.

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

One of the most baffling aspects of this President is his aversion to the veto.

It's a legitimate excercise of Presidtential power. Why fight with one hand tied behind his back?

[Dane]

Was Schwarzenegger subject to a 60-day limit at the time?

The story came out and there was a media frenzy, on talk radio, and the internet. I don't know if Arnold actually ran an ad countering the LA Times. IIRC, he went on to do positive ads and didn't mention the LA Times in any of his commericals.

[onyx]

Another voice of sanity arrives. WELCOME!

[Protagoras]

For the next ten minutes or whatever time we have left for free speech in Gulag America.

Thanks to Bush, it won't be much longer.

BTW, I'm not a Libertarian no matter how many times you claim I am. Please avoid me if you wish, but don't expect a pass in return.

[Who is John Galt?]

...they're just like the Democrats; all talk, no solutions.

Sorry, compadre, but to me you folks seem 'just like the Democrats; all talk, no Constitution.' Allow me to quote the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

What, precisely, does "Congress shall make no law" mean to you? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for "an answer to that question"...

;>)

[goldstategop]

Arnold could still file a response. Now the media can give a one sided picture of its favored candidates AND issues. Just like in the state-controlled media of so many countries we criticize here for abridging freedom of speech. America now seems to have decided in its inferior stupidity too much freedom of speech is too much of a good thing.

[Mo1]

Well, CNN and MSNBC aren't even reporting about this, whatever that means.

They aren't?? .. hmmmmm

[xsmommy]

yeah, remember that???

[aristeides]

Incumbent protection is what drives legislation now. Hence the gerrymandered House districts. Hence the Supreme Court decision against term limits. Hence this 60-day limit and the court decision upholding it.

We're being ruled by a two-party oligarchy of career politicians whose supreme goal is protecting their own careers. If a piece of legislation that favors that end violates the Constitution, hey, who cares?

Read Dr. Tom Coburn's book, Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders.

[PhiKapMom]

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

That deserved big bold lettering. People's freedom of speech have not been stopped by this bill -- never was and never will be. Like you said, they can write any amount of check they want to buy an add. Move-On.org cannot to put in perspective. Thanks for posting this!

[Howlin]

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.

Agreed.

And for the record, I would never include you in "they". You have to admit that there are those on FR who love anything that hurts Bush and/or the GOP.

[freeeee]

maybe dem Messicans will stay on their side of the fence

Maybe I'll join them there.

[GeronL]

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.

A veto would have been upheld by the House.

that would have been the end.

[Spiff]

The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.

If this is an accurate report of the portions of the CFR upheld by the SCOTUS, I hearby pledge to form a small group - one who would be covered by this law - and to run a political ad in a local paper against the representative(s) of our choice within 60-days of the first speech-restricted election. I will do this in open defiance of this unconstitutional law.

[Dane]

Can they run Bush attack ads?

Who knows?

[rwfromkansas]

Crap. It upholds the ad ban.

This is a black day for America. A very very black day.

All we needed was one more conservative on that damn court.