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.

[Petronski]

Apparently, the marketplace of ideas is to be fully open only to defamers, nude dancers, pornographers, flag burners, and cross burners.

Even without citations, it is probably still too long.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Because we "control" Congress. He doesn;t think it looks good for a GOP president to veto stuff from a GOP Congress.

[NittanyLion]

Nittany...I don't think it was unreasonable for many of us to believe that the SC would strike down some or all of this hideous CFR...afterall, they did the RIGHT thing in stopping the democrats from attempting to steal an election in Florida.

This is why you don't gamble with the constitution. Congress, the President and the courts ALL have a requirement to use their judgment in determining whether a bill is constitutional. Yet Congress and the Prez knowingly passed/signed one that was not. They vacated their responsibility and gambled with our rights (for personal gain) by shifting that responsibillity to a third-party.

[cc2k]

July 4th wrote:

---

This decision in no way takes "big money" out of the process. The money just can't go to parties now. It can go to issue advocacy groups, like the NRA and MoveOn - as we have already seen with Soros. How they can spend it may be restricted, but they can raise as much as they want.

---

Actually, you are only partially right.

Now, with the 60 day limitations on "electioneering communications," nobody can spend money on "electioneering communicaitons" within 60 days of a federal election or within 30 days of a federal primary.

So, within the next few weeks, Ashcroft will have to start rounding up the liberal groups who produce television ads for or against issues and/or candidates in the Dem primaries within 30 days of those primaries. That's going to work really well for this administration. If they enforce the law, the Dems will scream that they are meddling in the Dem primary process. If they don't enforce the law, the "victims" of the attack adds by issue advocacy groups will say that the Bush administration is derelict in their duty to enforce the campaign finance laws, and we need D's in the whitehouse so that these important laws can be enforced.

This was a big trap for the Bush administration, and the president should have seen it coming and vetoed the CFR law to begin with.

[goldstategop]

I'm not a sunshine patriot or one of those who believes a law is good only when it helps my side. I'm not one of those who believes everything goes. Sorry, but the Court will get no cooperation on this from me and neither will the government.

[NYC Republican]

I don't recall any individual exception to the BCRA speech ban. And if individuals are exempt, why would Soros donate $10 million to a group he doesn't control rather than produce and pay for his own ads? The same applies to the Hollywood donors to Ickes' media fund

I would assume that any individual ads would have to disclose who paid for them.

My feeling is that by that time, Soros' name will be associated with scum, so this would backfire BIG-TIME.

[Smile-n-Win]

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

You will be thrown into jail if you criticize President XXYY (D) at the wrong time of the year.

That's how.

[San Jacinto]

I can't take much solace from the fact that I am still free to pay $90,000 for a full page newspaper ad or a TV spot, but a group to which I might contribute 50 bucks is not free to do so.

[WhiteGuy]

I am seriously considering sitting out the next election.

Here's my plan..............

I'm writing in Walter E. Williams.

He makes more sense than any announced candidate.

After that, I think I'll spend the day at the racetrack.

[Howlin]

Gee, Nittany, I was wrong. Just like a lot of other people a lot of other times.

You want me to send you some money or something?

Or does being able to say that to me make it all worthwhile?

[concerned about politics]

No. That's illegal.

Not really. Call it a bonus.

[Dan from Michigan]

I can tell you one difference right now. The NRA is funded by people like me. Working class individuals.

The gun grabbers are funded by rich elitists like George Soros that can dump individual (as opposed to CORPORATE) money into a bunch of adds.

[Steve_Seattle]

David Souter and O'Conner are utter morons, spineless and incoherent; Breyer and Stevens are simply evil. As usual, Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist see things clearly, their dissents go right to the point.

[jaugust]

Your argument sounds more emotional than intellectual...I don't doubt that there are many who "feel" the way that you do who are incapable of turning the switch to the "OFF" position when a political ad is on.

[Stopislamnow]

How is this going to be prosecuted?

Prez should just say "you enforce it" to the USSC.

Direct the Dept of Justice to prosecute no one.

Will this be considered a felony?

[Sabertooth]

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

I'm not entirely surprised, but still disappointed. There used to be a legitimate anti-communist wing in the Democrat Party in the likes of folks like Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, and Sam Nunn. I don't think it's good for the country that that species, if not extinct, hasn't been seen in the wild in some time. Zell Miller is sort of a zoo specimen.

[San Jacinto]

I will do this in open defiance of this unconstitutional law.

When you do so, please detail your intentions here in advance and ping me. I would like to have my name listed in the ad along with yours.

[Protagoras]

What's your solution?

My solution is to work hard to defeat anyone who violates my rights, no matter who they are. The fact that you feel so helpless that you have to cast your pitiful vote for people who destroy the country out of fear that others will destroy it more is your personal problem. It has to do with spine and character, sadly you don't have the tools.

And nice try again at suggesting I would ever vote for Dean or any other liberal slob. That shows a lack of character as well.

[July 4th]

Actually, you are only partially right.

I did say 'how those groups spend it can be restricted.' And it is only limited to groups. It is not a total ban on electioneering speech. All we get now is the candidate's spending, and anyone who can personally ante up. (Don't misunderstand...I'm not defending this here, only trying to clarify.)

[NittanyLion]

Or does being able to say that to me make it all worthwhile?

After the namecalling and flaming you conducted, just hearing you admit it is good enough.

Maybe next time you won't advocate gambling with my money or rights.