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.

[Howlin]

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

Did I say it did?

[Law]

This decision puts CFR in the same league as the Sedition Act which made it a crime of treason to criticize the government in the press.

This very point was a core part of the Paul v. FEC argument in their briefs. But the court declined to permit the Paul plaintiffs to present their case independently during oral arguments, but the court did permit those opposing the ban on contributions by minors (hardly central to the law and perhaps because of that struck down) to make their case in oral arguments.

In hindsight, it seems clear that a majority of the court had already made up its mind to uphold the law and so structured the oral arguments to avoid being challenged directly and publicly on the main issue.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I do not agree with several of Bush's decisions but this is not a perfect world where we always get what we want. Perhaps you have never accepted the fact that politics means compromise and that you must appeal to millions of moderate voters to get any power. The far right will never find a candidate acceptable to them. Bush is the most conservative president we have had in a century (even Reagan who regularly compromised with the RATS) and no one more conservative would have even a slim chance. Since you have forgotten someone should remind you that he didn't even win a majority of the popular votes.

This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.

Free speech is not absolute and one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre or expect to be able to curse someone out to their face or make up bold faced lies about them. This "restriction" is of the same ilk and no more of a problem than the others.

Hysterical sputtering and whining never did anyone any good and any alternative to Bush is far too horrible to comtemplate. I have no regard for the minor leaguers regularly touted as saviours by the perpetually disgruntled who frequent these threads. Nor can they be counted on in a pinch since just about anything suffices to get their panties in a twist.

[Spiff]

And I will send you legal fee money.

No, don't. Instead, get a few of your friends together and do the same thing. Run your own ads 60 days before the speech-restricted election as an act of civil disobedience. We'll all go to the gulags together.

[E.G.C.]

CMAC51 I totally agreee with you 1000% about the 60 day limit being crap. We'll have to see what happens. I apologize for my misplelling but this really jarred me.

My main problem with this bill is we will not be able to address what's going on in Congress prior to an election. This will give them the opportunity I'm afraid to do some very malicious and harmful things to us. This law IMHO was written with malicious and harmful intent towards christians and conservatives

[Moby Grape]

"Why do they think that the NRA cannot run an ad for a specific candidate but the anti-NRA can run an ad for a specific candidate?

What am I missing here?"

You are missing the point that the liberal media has just been handed absolute POWER of speech 60 days prior to an election...and we KNOW that they will USE this power for advocacy hidden in "news" reporting.

So the OTHER side has a clear advantage in terms of information to the public 60 days prior to an election (which is when most even start paying attention anyway)

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Oh, this is just great. The majority opinion was written by Stevens and O'Connor.

Wonder what "international law" they looked to in order to subvert the Constitution this time.

[IGOTMINE]

Does anyone have a link to who voted for this abomination last year?

[evad]

While Bush is not nearly the enemy of the Constitution that Clinton was, Gore would have been, or any of the 9 dwarves could be, he certainly doesn't meet the description of "constitution minded."

Spiffy analysis...and totally accurate.

[Steve_Seattle]

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

The dissenting justices make precisely this point; all sorts of fringe, socially dubious speech has been defended to the hilt by this court, yet they allow draconian restrictions on our most fundamental right to political discourse. O'Connor and Souter can go to hell. (If I said what I really think, the FBI would be knocking on my door.)

[aristeides]

This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.

How about banning all criticism of incumbents?

[Protagoras]

You have the unmigitigated gall to vote for someone you want instead of buying into the fear being sold here? How UnAmerican. < /sarcasm>

[Mo1]

They Democrats of our parents generation no longer exist and haven't for some time now

Are you just noticing this?

[cameraman]

Fox News may be our MAJOR hope in the media.....or else, like someone else said, we start a newspaper that competes with the NYSLIMES....et al.

I think you're onto something here. After reading about 200 of the posted replies, the consensus seems to be that we are in danger of not getting out an opposing political message to counter what the MainStreamMedia puts out there, especially during election time. Recently we have been making gains in this battle through the Internet, FOX news, talk radio and various newspaper outlets. I think that some focus needs to be put on marketing these outlets much more aggressively to let the masses know that there are alternatives to the constant message they receive from the MainStreamMedia.

For me personally, it was all of the facts that I never heard of or read about that turned me on to conservative news media sources.

[hellinahandcart]

I'll bet it's not.

[E.G.C.]

That's a good question. Can someone please provide that info for us? Thanks

[Semi Civil Servant]

Wednesday, March 27, 2002

WASHIHINGTON — President Bush signed the campaign finance reform bill into law in the Oval Office Wednesday without fanfare, but opponents of the measures immediately made hay of it by filing suit declaring the bill unconstitutional.

"I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns," Bush said in a written statement, pointing out several flaws in the bill.

"I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising... I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law," he said.

Thanks for the quote. It pretty much says all you need to know about how huge a mistake Bush (and the "Republican" Congress) made on this one. Depending on the rotten Supreme "Court" to make a ruling based on the Constitution was delusional.

[NittanyLion]

What's interesting, is that most of the people who were absolutely positive this law would be overturned, are the same people claiming that Medicare will now be privatized under the new PDP. They're generating one helluva track record...

[Sabertooth]

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

We didn't control Congress for a year and a half after Jeffords jumped.

Bush kept his veto pen in his pocket the entire time.

And how, really, does it make the President look better to sign bad legislation, even if passed by a GOP Congress?

[Howlin]

My solution is to keep trying to get more consevatives in office.

It is NOT to sit around and bitch and moan.