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.

[onyx]

What a wonderful avenue this is for the Bush haters here.

[Dan from Michigan]

You can now give $2000 instead of a $1000 so that was a plus, but guess that doesn't matter.

It wasn't even the soft money bans that irk me. The only thing that irked be about that bill is the 30/60 day anti-speech clauses and the media exception.

That's unacceptable, a wrong ruling, and is unworthy of being followed.

[Mo1]

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.

You are correct ..

[Sabertooth]

Yes he should have vetoed it .. but I sure as hell ain't going vote for Dean because Bush made a mistake

You got that right. It's staggering how bad the Democrat Presidential candidates are.

Only two, Gephardt and Lieberman, have even a clue on foreign policy (and they're unacceptable for a host of other reasons).

The rest of them are softer on terror than Bill Clinton.

[goldstategop]

Anyway, the law applies to the Little People like us, not the Moneyed And Powerful. The corruption in Washington will still be there only now we can no longer hold the politicians accountable since we are forbidden from shining a spotlight onto what they DON'T want us to know about, let alone see.

[NittanyLion]

I thought you told me the Supremes were sure to strike the unacceptable parts of this bill. What happened?

[jaugust]

The problem here is that Congress had NO BUSINESS passing this law. There was no consensus from the American people that they wanted this. Poll after poll showed that this was NOT an important issue, that it was way down the list compared to other more important issues. IMO, Congress voted AGAINST the will of the people for McCain-Feingold.

[Howlin]

There are plenty of "laws" that Congress passes that are in direct conflict to the Constitution.

Nobody here AGREES with them; nobody here has said they AGREE with this law; what you seem to want is for everybody to lay down and die and STOP FIGHTING the idiots in Congress.

Well, just condescending pontification won't do it; most of us here prefer to remain in the game and to fight for what we believe in -- even if it means fighting our own party.

Those of you who wish to sit on the sidelines and smuggly snipe are welcome to do so; that is your right; just try not to appear so above it all. Admit you'd rather have the issue than be part of the solution.

[Smile-n-Win]

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?

Liberal Law 101: You can do whatever you want to as long as it's something "progressive." You mustn't do anything "hateful" or "judgmental." Whether an action is progressive or hateful/judgmental is determined by the people most qualified for that job: New York Times columnists.

America will begin to be free again as soon as people understand the logic behind Liberal Law--and stop following it.

[Stopislamnow]

Agree most wholeheartedly.

Constitution is in ribbons.

USSR=United States Socialist Republic

Same old evil. Just a different adress.

[Bob J]

Well said.

[Howlin]

Finally, a sensible reply! Thanks.

[IGOTMINE]

"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!"

Sure we can buy an "add". But we can't run it 60 days prior to an election.

And the fact that his law applies to the left as well is totally IRRELEVANT! IT IS A USURPATION OF OUR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS!

Catch up, will ya!

[NYC Republican]

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??

Exactly. Agree with the whole post

[sinkspur]

The abject failure of this President to uphold his oath to defend the constitution should make you see the truth about these guys.

What's your solution?

Vote for the drug-crazed Libertarians?

Tele-tubby Howard Phillips?

Or, should I join you in an ultimate piss-and-moan by voting for Howard Dean?

Have you joined the Free-Staters yet?

[thoughtomator]

You would have thought the GOP, or the President at the very least, should have been aware that the Supreme Court no longer considers the Constitution in its rulings.

[Howlin]

And I will send you legal fee money.

[hellinahandcart]

You have to admit that there are those on FR who love anything that hurts Bush and/or the GOP.

Absolutely.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the wrong that was done to the nation today.

If there wasn't a war on, I'd sit out the next election too. As things stand now, I'll just be going through the motions in 2004.

[Mo1]

You got that right. It's staggering how bad the Democrat Presidential candidates are.

staggering ???

Are you surprised?? .. These are the same people who want us to be one with the UN .. they have made no secret of that

[BureaucratusMaximus]

What a wonderful avenue this is for the Bush haters here.

Bush haters? I guess that makes you a republican tool. You just can't stand dissenting opinion. No wonder why you and your ilk are playing down this ruling...it will restrict the "dissenting" opinion you hate so much.