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.

[NittanyLion]

The Supremes almost always uphold campaign finance restrictions on political speech. To be fair, a few who supported his signing of the bill have acknowledged now that it was a mistake.

Yes, a few have. Unfortunately I see the same people reading the tea leaves and telling me the prescription drug bill will lead to privatization. I suspect most will learn nothing from this exercise, and will still refuse to look at history when predicting the consequences of actions.

[Sabertooth]

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.

The point of CFR is precisely to affect our lives.

Politicians affect our lives. CFR restrictcs the flow of information about those politicians at the time we elect them.

[Howlin]

You were adamantly in favor of Bush signing this law and defended it to no end by claiming conservatives would benefit as a result of SCOTUS' eventual ruling.

That is an absolute lie, but if it empowers you to keep posting it go right ahead.

[Spiff]

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.

Really!? This law says a 60-day limitation and that is OK in your opinion. So, would 180-days be similarly constitutional? How about 2 years?

If Congress can restrict speech, even for one day, then they can ultimately restrict all speech. That certainly was not the intention of the founding fathers and it is not included in any intelligent reading of the Constitution.

[WackyKat]

I do not agree with several of Bush's decisions but this is not a perfect world where we always get what we want. ...

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.

What a bunch of nonsense. You are such a party loyalist that you don't mind having your rights stripped from you as long as it's done by people with an "R" behind their name.

But I'm not surprised you don't understand what's really going on here, you don't understand the Constitution either

[aristeides]

Our executive and legislative branches are made up of elected career politicians. Our courts are made up of lawyers nominated and confirmed by elected career politicians. So they support the shared interests of elected career politicians against the rest of us.

[Blood of Tyrants]

In fact, the four liberals along with O'Connor voted in lock step FOR it.

[Sabertooth]

Revisionist history.

Just got easier.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Ah, a clever dig designed to rev-up my ayre!

In that respect I decline a response. However, in all seriousness, I will maintain a logical and non-inflamatory approach. In another perspective, let us not judge the wine (or whine) intil it time........

[Dane]

DUmmies are happy (sort of). They're happy this issue will "Split the Republican base" so they can win in 2004! Of course, their party will go broke, but hey, they'll learn that one soon enough. You're freaking out over the unknown. This has no affect on your right to speak. The NRA can still run NRA ads. They just can't say "Bush." We can still plead our case without mentioning a politicians name. Our groups appeal to American tradition. There's appeals to the American haters - a small minority.

Exactly.

[Who is John Galt?]

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

Congratulations. Is someone who ignores the "supreme law of the land" a 'conservative,' or not? Perhaps you consider the issue irrelevant?

It is NOT to sit around and bitch and moan.

Sorry, compadre, but calling a blatantly unconstitutional law 'unconstitutional' hardly qualifies as 'bitching and moaning.' It's a simple recognition of fact...

;>)

[Dane]

In fact, the four liberals along with O'Connor voted in lock step FOR it.

And Clinton appointed two of those liberals, Ginsburg and Breyer.

[jaugust]

Point well taken, but what we have here is someone who is closer to Richard Nixon. But would we be more socialist under Gore? Yes we would. As much as I like Dubya, I do wonder just what the %%#$@ he's thinking.

[Howlin]

Perhaps I should restate that.

I'm going to work to put REPUBLICANS in office, rather than sit back and let the Democrats take back the power.

Clear enough.

[PhiKapMom]

Outstanding reply. It does not infringe on my individual freedom of speech. It does, however, keep those nasty ads off my TV and my radio. But my newspaper and the Internet can still use them.

People need to read what this is all about before declaring the sky is falling on their freedom of speech.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

A fact of what?

your opinion?

[Hank Rearden]

No, I want a President who will spend $2 TRILLION on a medicare pill bill... because 20% of Seniors needs some help so we give it to ALL of them.

High-school or college Seniors?

Or are you talking about OLD PEOPLE regarding this sleazy vote-buying scam?

[Steve_Seattle]

Your excerpt of the law provides visual evidence of what a piece of sh*t this law is. Take one example: the 50,000 person limit. How can you have as a key part of a law a cutoff point that is impossible to determine with any accuracy? That in itself should have caused the law to be overturned - in many, many cases, there would be no way to establish whether this provision has or has not been violated. How can anyone tell whether a communication reaches 49,000 people, 50,000, or 51,000?

[concerned about politics]

That was the law before BCRA, which introduced new restrictions, including the the 60-day complete ban. It's not longer necessary to say "vote for" to be judged in violation of the statute.

The NRA can run ads like "Support the NRA. Hunting is alive and well in the U.S."
Where's the politrical ad? That's not political. It's about sports!
Right to life - "Supprt the family values and tradition. " No politics there.

[aristeides]

But would we be more socialist under Gore? Yes we would.

Not at all clear. A Republican Congress would resist much more of what a Democratic president did (as it did under Clinton.)