Posted on 12/10/2003 7:32:45 AM PST by Stultis
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:38:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You can run whatever ad you want. You just can't give unlimited amounts of money to a political party so THEY can run the ad.
For all those people who have a couple of hundred grand laying around and want to make a political statement. Lord forbid if I want to pool my money with other like minded people who may be on lower rungs of the economic ladder...
Those who would agrue that we do not need Term Limits for members of Congress and the Federal Judiciary simply don't understand the threat being posed by government to our freedoms.
WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties.
Those donations, called "soft money," had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads.
Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals capitalized on a loophole in the existing, Watergate-era campaign money system.
The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.
The so-called "soft money" is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps on the amount individuals may give and which is outside the old law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign donations.
Federal election regulators had allowed soft money donations outside those restrictions so long as the money went to pay for get-out-the-vote activities and other party building programs run by the political parties.
Supporters of the new law, called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, said that in practice, soft money was funneled to influence specific races for the House, Senate or the White House, and that donors, parties and candidates all knew it.
The court was divided on the complex issue; five of the nine justices voted to substantially uphold the soft money ban and the ad restrictions, which were the most significant features of the vast new law.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer signed the main opinion barring candidates for federal office, including incumbent members of Congress or an incumbent president, from raising soft money.
The majority also barred the national political parties from raising this kind of money, and said their affiliates in the individual states may not serve as conduits for soft money.
Without soft money, politicians and political parties may only take in donations that are already allowed in limited amounts, such as a private individual's small re-election donation to his or her local member of Congress.
That means no more huge checks from wealthy donors, and no contributions from the treasuries of corporations or labor unions.
Not so---lobbying/advocacy organizations like the NRA are prevented from running ads in the weeks (I forget exactly how many) just before an election. The restrictions are NOT just on political parties.
I hate to say it, but until we can get the nonsense corrected with new legislation, our only option is to squeeze the 'Rats by ENFORCING the money side of it harshly.
Still, this doesn't change the fact that this ruling is an odious offense to the the Constitution, and probably should by resisted with active civil disobedience, especially wrt the ad ban.
So, enforce the donation/money side (until overturned legislatively) and bedevil the courts by muddying the issue of what constitutes media outlets versus advocacy orgs on the ad side. This seems to me the best strategy. Any thoughts?
A look at some provisions in the campaign finance law upheld Wednesday by the Supreme Court.
_Prohibits national political parties from raising unregulated "soft money," including donations of any size from corporations and unions and unlimited contributions from any source.
_Bans the solicitation of soft money by federal candidates and officeholders for federal campaigns.
_Restricts election-time political ads by special-interest groups and others, including a ban on such ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts in the month before a primary election and within two months of a general election.
You can run whatever ad you want. You just can't give unlimited amounts of money to a political party so THEY can run the ad.
There is another provision in the CFR banning independent parties from running ads in the last two or three weeks prior to the election. This decision doesn't seem to be addressing that. I assume there will be another decision on that.
Ahhh, the irony ...
Second, Demorats have a VERY difficuly time raising money from individuals in small chunks. Republicnas (and Bush is a prime example) are increible fundraisers when it comes to individual contributions. In fact, I believe that Bush's average contribution of the $100+ million he has raised so far are from individual donations of $100 or less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.