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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

A political ad clearly identifies a candidate. The 60-day restrictions are limited to groups, not individuals. One man can run an attack ad against a candidate. The NRA can run an ad on the 2nd Amendment.

[IGOTMINE]

Hear hear! Well said.

[Petronski]

Apparently, the marketplace of ideas is to be fully open only to defamers, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964); nude dancers, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560 (1991) (plurality opinion); pornographers, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002); flag burners, United States v. Eichman, 496 U. S. 310 (1990); and cross burners, Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. ___ (2003).

This portion of the Thomas dissent would make a great tagline.

[goldstategop]

This law is only the beginning NOT the outer limit, of the restrictions Congress can impose. As long as Congress isn't too blatant about it, it can gag the rest of the country any way it likes.

[Colonel_Flagg]

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

Quote of the day. Well said.

[July 4th]

It's a stupid dichotomy, however.

[deport]

I presumed nothing... You are doing enough presuming for all of us..... Glad you are all knowing.

Just because the right wingers can't run ads doesn't mean the same type organization for the left wingers can...

[Moby Grape]

Individual, for the most part, cannot afford to place ads on TV...they give their monies to groups who with the collective power of the monies, can then do so on their behalf...this ruling DOES effect individual free speech.

[Howlin]

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

One thing you will be doing, as usual, is continuing to launch personal attacks and accuastions when you have nothing else to offer.

If you're so willing to dismiss what is going on in this country without so much as TRYING -- which is what the rest of US are doing -- then to hell with you.

We don't need your damn vote. Too many strings attached and way too much "my way or the highway" attitude.

[Dan from Michigan]

BTW - Didn't Lincoln tell SCOTUS to F-OFF

[Mo1]

I'll miss the Hollywood group pleading for the people to vote for keeping social security and ..

Guess there is a bright side after all huh?

[muskogee]

...cut a check from their personal funds...
Only now, your personal funds are no longer private. They and your party affiliation may be more heavily scrutinized if you are a republican. (attack speech will be presumed guilty of violating c.f. law)

[goldstategop]

That's true. The politicians now have power even King George III only dreamed of when our country was a part of Great Britain as its 13 colonies.

[CasearianDaoist]

A political ad clearly identifies a candidate. The 60-day restrictions are limited to groups, not individuals. One man can run an attack ad against a candidate. The NRA can run an ad on the 2nd Amendment.

Only for the time being.

[GeronL]

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

The liberals will declare that it doesn't apply to the primary and it'll take a 4-year court case to decide...

[goodnesswins]

I'm in that camp to ...the President's "aversion to veto".....I really am surprised...and waiting....and waiting....and waiting!

[deport]

Damn just Damn....

NRA can't run ads but Anti Gun Lobby can.......

Anti Abortion groups can't run ads but Pro Aborts can...

Yep I understand just perfectly.....

[dread78645]

How can this be!!!! This is an outrage. The Supreme's really let Dubya down on this one. We all know that he was relying on them to undo his signature on the law.
How could they do this to Dubya?

OK. You know the drill:
1 keyboard
1/2 cup coffee
1 sinus lining.

[concerned about politics]

I understand to outrage about the free speach issue. No problem there. It sucks, and I feel it's certainly an attack of free speach!
But this does help our side a lot as far as political money. All donations have to be from individuals. That means anyone. A CEO can hand out donation checks to employees, really. Republicans work, and can send in the cash. The Democrat base is a social parasite, and no way could they dish out $2,000 for a political campain.
Republicans work, so they control the personal money in America. Am I missing something on the donation argument in this issue??