Supreme Court Upholds 'Soft Money' Limits (first AP report on McCain-Feingold)

AP via Fox News ^ | 10 December 2003

[Stultis]

WASHINGTON

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

So if I want to run a tv ad 2 weeks before an election am I barred from doing it if I mention a candidate's name or not?

[Smogger]

So if I want to run a tv ad 2 weeks before an election am I barred from doing it if I mention a candidate's name or not?

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.

[Starrgaizr]

Whatever happened to free speech?

Is there really too much money spent on political speech? Say, in comparison to discussions of Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, and the AFLAC duck?

[tomahawk]

This is no longer a free country. We are becoming a basket case. Running political ads at any time is political speech, clearly protected by the First Amendment. We have traitors to the Constitution sitting on the Supreme Court.

[finnman69]

So George Soros and Moveon still get to run their hit ads?

[2banana]

You can run whatever ad you want.

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...

[Reagan Renaissance]

The Court must put some distinction on the word "free". If the speech is "paid" campaign advertising, the Court must consider that it is not "free" and therefore the Court must feel it is not covered under the First Amendment. Besides, if it is "paid" speech, it must be covered under the Commerce Clause giving Congress the right to regulate it.

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.

[Stultis]

Another AP piece, this time bylined:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2003/12/10/supreme_court_upholds_political_money_law/

Supreme Court upholds political money law

By Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writer, 12/10/2003

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.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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."

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.

[steve50]

I think the bans are 30 days prior on state, 60 days on federal.

[Stultis]

This could actually be "good" for Republicans. The Pubbies have always gotten much more in small donations than the DNC. OTOH the 'Rats have shown plenty of willingness to illegally channel money into (or illegally spend it at the directions of) the DNC. Heck, the current head of the DNC (McAwful) was implicated in exactly such activities involving Union money.

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?

[Stultis]

Campaign Finance Glance
Associated Press

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.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

My fear is that this is only the beginning.

McCain Feingold II will shut down hard money. McCain Feingold III will mandate publicly financed elections. McCain Feingold IV.....

[lasereye]

So if I want to run a tv ad 2 weeks before an election am I barred from doing it if I mention a candidate's name or not?

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.

[goldstategop]

Yep. The aim is to move to a system of publicly financed elections altogether. Just like in Canada.

[goldstategop]

Rest assured if the SCOTUS did NOT strike down a provision, its constitutional. Of course, I regard this decision as unconstitutional and I will NEVER obey it.

[NormsRevenge]

Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer

Ahhh, the irony ...

[finnman69]

Wednesday, March 27, 2002

WASHINGTON — President Bush signed the campaign finance reform bill into law in the Oval Office Wednesday without fanfare, but opponents of the measures immediately made hay of it by filing suit declaring the bill unconstitutional.

"I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns," Bush said in a written statement, pointing out several flaws in the bill.

"I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment. I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising... I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law," he said.

[CWW]

I agree with the comments that the ad ban is totally ridiculous and predict that both liberal and conserative pressure groups will pressure Congress to amend McCain-Feingold to eliminate this provision.

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.