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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

My "argument" is that the constitution gives Congress the power to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4. This is a totally intellectual argument.

Emotionalism and hysterics are what those ready the attack Bush are showing.

[Protagoras]

I do. I blame them for electing people like Bush. And Clinton and all the rest of the clowns. I agree, the country gets what it deserves. It deserves to decend back into tyranny, and it will. Ben Frankin called it.

[jwalsh07]

Heck, perhaps we'd have the same consideration as the politically protected "official media".

Well thats where we are heading. If several of us band together to buy bandwidth and create blogs skewering our political opponents within 60 days of an election, are we subject ot Devils Island? Of course we are because 5 morons have just said so. The costs alone of the litigation forthcoming will demand an increase in taxes.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That is a blatant LIE. Nothing stops you from criticizing anyone at any time.

[Mo1]

"We are now no better than the soviet union."

Yup, I'm afraid you're right. At least our women, generally speaking, are better looking

HA! .. you just try stopping a women in this country from speaking her mind ..*L*

[Jimbaugh]

I am going to form a syndicated news show and then as a journalist I am protected by the Constitution. That is why the NRA is forming its own network. You will pay for advertising and that is deducible for any business.

Wow this is great. Businesses can contribute and deduct it from their taxes.

Is it legal?  You can bet on it.  We just do what NBC or ABC does and it is legal.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

>> We're here waiting for the 10 busloads of Free Republic Constitutional scholars to arrive.

Thomas Sowell said something to the effect that self-described elites mistake confusion in their own minds for complexity in the real world.

[massadvj]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the meaning of "socialism."

Here is the dictionary definition for starters:

"The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. "

What is campaign finance reform but an intermediate step? What is the prescription drug benefit? Or farm subsidies? Or out-of-control domestic spending at a rate of increase greater than the rate of inflation and economic growth combined? All of these things qualify as steps toward collective ownership of the economy.

As originally envisioned, socialism would be enacted to protect the poor and underclass. But the modern version in America protects the already rich: drug companies, well-healed seniors, incumbent politicians, agribusiness and the like. When you stop to realize that 55 percent of the wealth in this country is in the hands of people over 65, and 60 percent of federal spending targets the same group, you will find that the government is the biggest culprit when it comes to contributing to the growing disparity between rich and poor.

This is the way socialism works. In theory, it is supposed to delegitimize social class. In reality, it creates a new upper class based on political privilege. We saw this in the Soviet Union, we see it today in Europe and America. Millions of seniors living in golf course haciendas in Sun City, or plantation estates in Myrtle Beach, all on the government dole while working stiffs are deprived of upward mobility and a level playing field. That's socialism, my friend, and George Bush has been its unwavering advocate.

To get back on topic, campaign finance reform fits into the equation as a device for stifling free expression and locking in the power for incumbents, a very necessary piece if politicians wish to continue to loot the economy and delegate who the winners and losers are to be as far as sharing in the pie.

[concerned about politics]

I'm curious though, does the slow boil in the frog pot ever bother you?

Not yet. This isn't over till the fat lady sings. I'd like to know more before I cut my wrist like many of you folks.

[July 4th]

You bring up an interesting point. I bet the NRA knew this decision yesterday. More power to them!!

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is NO banning of all criticisms of incumbents. Where do you come up with that?

[MEG33]

No better than the Soviet Union?

Good Grief!

[Protagoras]

It's starting to smell around here.

The stench is from you and your ilk.

You have not made one single post to me on topic on this thread. (or any other thread I can remember). Personal attacks and references, and attempts to change the subject. In short, it's you who stinks the place up.

[spunkets]

"Article I, Section 4 of the US constitution gives Congress the right to regulate elections."

No it does not, anywhere within the relm of the present meaning and disscusion. Here is that section:

"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.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day."

"You can't go into a polling place and start to give a speech for a candidate now can you? "

That is not only the hour, the voting is actually occuring at that time. "Nonsense piled on nonsense is still nonsense."

I did not do that. Congress, the President(Bush)) and 5 on the SCOTUS did.

[hellinahandcart]

Yes, but wait for "Rush is just a Chicken Little on drugs".

The LOLing and ROFLMAOing will continue on this thread, I'm afraid. If people had any sense they'd be grieving.

[ought-six]

"If political free speech is not protected, what is?"

Nothing. We have become what our ancestors feared most of all: An out-of-control, unaccountable oligarchical dictatorship of the elites. I fear we are fast approaching what France saw in 1789, only our new revolution will be far, far more brutal and violent. All the seeds are sown for that eventuality. I never thought I'd see this is in my lifetime.

[nmh]

Liberals win another victory!

Neocons, congratulate yourselves. Now "putting your money where your mouth is" is no longer allowed, by law. It is the conservatives that give the most. Liberals are cheap by their very self absorbed and selfish nature.

[FastCoyote]

"Even if they lose the case on appeal, to kill FR and much of talk radio, all the left has to do is get an injunction to shut down a website or radio show within 60 days before the election."

Yup, we know this is the plan. So, preemptively we need to sue early and sue often. Turn this into a giant fireball of litigation. That is the inevitable direction, so better get in front of the action now.

[Who is John Galt?]

My "argument" is that the constitution gives Congress the power to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4. This is a totally intellectual argument.

And your argument that Article I, Section 4 somehow makes the 1st Amendment null & void is a totally idiotic argument...

;>)

[Robert A Cook PE]

Thank you.