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.

[texastoo]

Anyway, the law applies to the Little People like us, not the Moneyed And Powerful

I wonder if this law will apply to the Spanish stations, newspaper and magazines from Mexico?

[sinkspur]

My solution is to work hard to defeat anyone who violates my rights, no matter who they are.

A typical non-answer from you.

IOW, you're just spinning your wheels.

[goldstategop]

For now its liberals who are gagged so there's some poetic justice in their getting this passed in the first place. That gives those of us on FR cold comfort since you never know when its gonna be OUR turn. We have the right to be equally silenced. All so the political class can have the license to operate in the dark. Sunshine in government? This law does anything but shine the light on the political cockroaches, mark my words.

[Moby Grape]

The liberals (democrats) are going to file complainst with the FEC claiming that Fox News is engaged in canidate advocasy in violation of CFR...and they may just suceed, considering that like minded "judges" on the bench all over this country.

[Howlin]

I think John Edwards already tried that one. :-)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently your memory has slipped or you would recall the tremendous impact FR had on the Florida recount scam. Not only did we take on the RATS and win but the RATmedia and its Big Networks were beaten soundly as well.

Your sarcasm sounds like a RATmedia egalitarian rant or class warfare.

This law was constitutional from the get go and only those with little regard for Congress' constitutional powers thought otherwise.

[goldstategop]

It doesn't apply to the media, I gather any media who are practically now a law unto themselves.

[AdamSelene235]

Look at Article I, Section 4 and tell me what that means.

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

I'm having a hard time seeing how this condones the creation of "speech crimes". Speech about the election isn't the election itself.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Is it wise to project fictional outcome with such vivid imagination?

I remember the election in 2000 where the dooms-day crowd had Gore stealing the election. The Tinfiol Brigade had the evil Bush illuminati stealing the country and turning it over to the "NEW WORLD ORDER".

Maybe it is better to simply settle down and be more realistic. This is not different that it was in the past and there are good points to this legislation

[Who is John Galt?]

How about banning all criticism of incumbents?

See Post #160 - our friend 'justletmeburymyheadinthesand' has yet to reply...

;>)

[Sabertooth]

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

Are you just noticing this?

Why do you think I've never voted for a Democrat in a general election?

Crossed over in primaries a couple of times, to monkeywrench a bit.

[Law]

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

The problem issn't a shortage of conservatives in office but a shortage of conservatives with spines who will put principle before political calculation.

Electing more of the same will only make the problem worse.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That goes without saying. But they are "experts" on constitutional questions, just ask them.

[Steve_Seattle]

"For now its liberals who are gagged"

Do you think any liberal would have worked for CFR if they thought it worked to their disadvantage? Even before the ink was dry, they were scheming to get around it and exploit it.

[puroresu]

Excellent points. We're losing our nation incrementally.

If the courts can create "rights" not found in the Constitution (abortion, sodomy, gay marriage) then there's nothing to stop them from obliterating rights that are found there (free speech, gun rights).

If we have a "living constitution", then like any organic entity, it needs to lose dead cells every now and then to make way for the new ones. The Supremes today ditched a few dead cells from the 1st Amendment.

Of course, we'll hear the usual arguments from the accommodationists here. It's not all bad, we'll be told, because lefties can't buy political ads during the 60 days prior to elections either.

Well, first of all, I support the right of lefties to buy ads. I'm not interested in suppressing my rivals' free speech. But it any event, it will hurt us more than them. We rely on independent ads to get the word out past the filter of the leftist news media. Talk radio (which will likely now be restricted with a new fairness doctrine once the Dems get control of government again) and internet blogs can't compete with the incessant drone of propaganda from the networks. Many conservatives have won close elections because of pro-lifers and other conservatives running issue ads exposing the leftist records of opposing candidates. In short, we've had more success with this type of activism than the left has had. It's been a way for us to get around the media and express our opinions, and now it's gone.

But even many conservatives will continue to stick their heads in the sand, as they always do when one of these idiotic court rulings is handed down. My favorite example would be the people who come on here and ask whether the ruling will really affect my life.

As in:

"Does it really affect your life if the courts redefine the institution of marriage to allow two men to marry?"

"Does it really affect your life if the courts fabricate a right to sodomy out of thin air and impose it on the states?"

"Does it really affect your life if the courts violate the principle of federalism to impose abortion on demand on the states?"

Nawwwww! None of that stuff affects us. Nothing to see here, folks. Just go on with your private life and leave constitutional "interpretation" to experts. Maybe then we can have a more (ahem) orderly society like Europe, a place we should all strive to emulate.

[jwalsh07]

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

Perhaps but it will be a cold day in hell before any member of Congress that voted for this crapola gets a dime or a vote from my family.

[deport]

December 10, 2003, 10:08 AM EST

HAMDEN, Conn. -- President George W. Bush continues to lead all potential Democratic challengers in a national poll released Wednesday.

The Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters found that although former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean increased his lead among the Democratic contenders, Bush easily outdistanced each of the Democrats vying for the party nomination...........

Bush was favored 51-40 percent over Dean, 51-40 percent over Lieberman, 51-39 percent over Kerry, 53-38 percent over Gephardt and 50-41 percent over Clark.

[WhiteGuy]

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

Yeah,

While I'm at the race track I'm gonna smoke and drink too.

In all seriousness, voting for someone who I feel would uphold his oath and truly represent the electorate is the only way I'll ever go again.

[Labyrinthos]

You forgot the "sarcasm" tag.

[hellinahandcart]

The left will be just as silenced as we are. People are forgetting that. And WE own the political cash machine.

You know what? I'm getting real tired of being told by pollyannas that I have to keep on making lemonade from all the lemons that get dumped in my lap.

Today we've just been told we're restricted to lemonade from here on out. Why even try to be positive about it?