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.

[Congressman Billybob]

I've already thought of a way to stick a thumb in the eye of the Supreme Court and this law. Run an ad somewhere that says, "Congressman Clank is a bum and should not be reelected." Then, the rest of the ad should consist of screen after screen of thousands of names of supporters of the ad. It should have this final line. "Come and get us."

Are they going to charge and try thousands of people? If they do, is any jury going to convict? It's called civil disobedience, and it can work if enough people join in.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[NittanyLion]

Exactly. The bottom line is that Congress has a responsibility to only pass laws they deem constitutional. The President may only sign bills he believes are constitutional. As a last defense, the courts will intervene.

Congress and the President made this a law with a wink and a nod, fully understanding that the bill was unconstitutional. They knew what the right thing was, and made a conscious decision to do nothing and throw the mess into SCOTUS' lap.

[B Knotts]

Exactly! That's what we need to do! Let them try to throw us all in jail!

[stljoe71]

The act of signing this bill alone qualifies GW as among the worst presidents in american history. I sometimes wonder if he was cloned from one of FDR's sphincter cells

[muskogee]

Once the equating of that which is run by the state to that which is not state-run is accepted, that which is not run by the state will be. (polling place = advertising?)

[oceanview]

and although unrelated to this decision, you can see why Bork has predicted that there are 5 votes on this court to toss out the federal defense of marriage act and legalize gay marriage. OConnor has gone totally over to the liberal side, I wonder why, what got to her?

[Howlin]

Who says it is?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Here is the dictionary definition: A social system in which the producers (the proletariat) possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. It is NOT welfarism which is the appropriate term to describe the US. Private ownership of the means of production is impossible under socialism see Marx, Karl.

Correct terminology is crucial in constructing valid arguments.

Calling your political opponent "socialist" is almost meaningless.

[ksen]

And people think it's not important for Bush to be reelected?

Ummm, it was President Bush that gave us this law.

[Stopislamnow]

Thats right. We could do that.

But who's gonna run it, any broadcaster will get thier license pulled, fined, and jailed.

The FCC controls simple ham operators like the Nazi's controlled the jews.

[TBP]

Tell that to the President who signed it. He certainly didn't seem to mind.

Hey, don't go criticizing W around here, even if he has compiled a terrible, anti-conservative domestic record. He's one of us no matter what he does, becaue we want it to be so.

[San Jacinto]

This hurts freedom no more than the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

People are not permitted to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater because it would cause a stampede and result in death or injury. O.K. I can follow that.

Congress has now made it illegal for advocacy groups to place ads w/in 60 days of an election which are supportive of a candidate or critical of a candidate. O.K. ...and the compelling reason for such a restriction on political speech is......stampede? no. Mayhem? no. Protection of incumbents? Bingo.

Yeah, I guess your right it's the same principal. /sarcasm

[WackyKat]

How do you come up with such stuff? This hurts freedom no more than the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

And it implements a power granted to Congress WITHIN the constitution so how could that "hurt" the constitution?

I'll just let your comments stand as the sterling example of obtuseness and ignorance that they are.

[VRWC_minion]

As someone who reads many legal opinions, are you sure you want to leave the interpretation of the full effect of a 300 page opinion to the average newspaper reporter ?

If the wrote 300 pages, I can only imagine what sort of bombs exist in the opinion.

[AdamSelene235]

Speeches are not banned at any time.

That is a deliberate misinterpretation of my remark.

Laws already created the catagory of speech crimes though they are called violations of election laws such as: giving speeches within a polling place; passing out campaign literature within 100 yards of a polling place; putting up posters within 100 yards of a polling place; buying votes (why should that be illegal?); or having sample ballots showing how to vote RAT posted within the polling place.

Unless you are actively interefering with a voter who is attempting to enter a ballot, I see no cause for police intervention.

Advertizing is part of a "manner" of holding elections.

No, its not a government activity, its private speech. Is Free Republic a "manner" of holding elections because money is coupled with speech?

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Once I have read the opinions in this case, that is probably where I will be, with respect to the Court.

I respect your opinion. Please ping me when you have had a chance to study the ruling.

[MineralMan]

"And people think it's not important for Bush to be reelected?

We have GOT to get some of our people on THIS Supreme Court!"

Uh...you may have missed the part where Bush signed this bill. How will he fix it?

[Howlin]

So the argument that 'we need to get more of 'our' guys in SCOTUS' doesn't fly

Are you totally clueless about what is going on on the SC?

Some of them want to or are close to retirment: it's important to make sure we get the 60 votes needed to make sure we DO get nominees that we agree with on the court.

[Dane]

since the courts are making this stuff up as they go along, anything is possible, anything

And who would rather have appointing the judges, Bush or Dean?

[Lady Eileen]

You will never be able to "start a newspaper" that has the effect of the NYT. The [broadcast] media uses the NYT as its textbook for what to put on the news every night...

Most swing voters make their decisions within 60 days of the election, and these ads are a big way these people get information. Those same people won't be watching the NRA cable news network...

Big media now controls the fate of elections in this country. We were making progress taking that power away from them slowly but surely; now they have it all back.

Excellent point: Big Media is the big winner of this case.