[Sabertooth]

I was one of the "experts" who confidently predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down major portions of this law. I believed that at least five Justices would follow their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

However, I stated a consequence of my being wrong. I said I would resign from the Bar of the Supreme Court if "we" (meaning all the lawyers against this law) failed to get major parts of this law chucked in the trash.

Well, that's a drag.

I wasn't confident. The SCOTUS almost always upholds restrictions on political speech, when those restrictions relate to campaign finance.

For my part, I won't hold you to your rash promise. Maybe you should run a thread and let the posters weigh in.

[B Knotts]

I think there's a lesson to be learned here about "strategery." It is "strategery" that has ultimately led to this situation. Let us recall some of it:

• 1981 - President Reagan, to uphold a campaign promise designed to mute criticism of him as too conservative, appoints Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court.
• 1990 - President George H. W. Bush, hoping to avoid a confirmation fight in the Senate, appoints "stealth" candidate David Souter to the Supreme Court.
• 2002 - President George W. Bush, trying to avoid creating a campaign issue that might work against him, signs McCain-Feingold, relying on SCOTUS to overturn.

See how "strategery," although it can take many years, always comes back to bite you in the hind quarters?