Please spare me the arrogation of Patrick Henry to this case. It is a trivial matter and no one is stopped from doing anything or saying anything. The Court found that prohibitions on soft money expenditures at certain times was not unconstitutional. That is all. Other features of this law may be before it in the future since it ruled only on the ban on mass communications ads. You contradict yourself sir. Either they only ruled on the soft money issue, or they ruled on that and the ban on mass communications ads, it can't be both. The soft money issue is probably a matter of free speech as well, but the ads issue clearly is.
All that need be done is to form PACs and anyone can say anything at any time. <
PACs are corporations, and the law bans ads by corporations, both for profit and not for profit ones, at least according to Justice Scalia as quoted in post 1828.
There are many ways to get around its strictures. Only the terminally stupid will be frustrated by it.
And then the Congress will be free to plug whatever loopholes they use. The important thing about the ruling is that the Court ruled that Congress has the power to do what the Constitution clearly forbids them from doing. If they can do it once, they can do it again.
The important thing about the ruling is that the Court ruled that Congress has the power to do what the Constitution clearly forbids them from doing. If they can do it once, they can do it again.Thank you!
I'll be using that line a lot in conversations, probably without attribution, 'kay?
What IS it with people who don't see the precendent that's been set this year? The camel just crawled right into the tent. All the court has to do now is invent a "compelling state interest", and suddenly "Congress shall not" becomes "the people shall not"...
Don't you understand this at all? Have you read none of the ruling or listened to any of the lawyers involved in the case? The ads banned are those paid for with soft money within the time periods. Soft money was not banned nor were ads banned. ONLY soft money ads after the time deadlines. Is this so hard for you to understand?
PACs are the format allowed other formats are excluded after the deadline if soft money is used. What is so hard to understand about this? IT is quite simple really.
It certainly is not clearly forbidden by the Constitution for Congress to take such an act. This whole discussion illustrates perfectly the complexity of constitutional interpretation and the necessity of one ultimate arbiter of its meaning. And if so much misunderstanding about this one law pervails how can you be expected to understand a far more formidible instrument, the US Constitution?
Contrary to your exaggerations Congress infrequently gets involved in election law. The last time was 30 yrs ago and I am sure it would have been met with the same hysteria and lack of comprehension of its impact as today's law.