[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.....

[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.

[jmaroneps37]

This is the blacks day in my life. I have lived through wars deaths of family and friends Kenndy shot, Viet Nam 9/11 and all but this is it. If anyone with money is looking for someone to be the front and take a federal arrest over this,I think I'll volunteer. Just when had the ratmedia down for the count this happens.
Somebody tell me again how we don't need a US constitutional amendment to stop gay marriage because we'll be saved from needing it by the courts and the "full faith and credit clause" can not force gay marriage into states where the people don't want it. Tell me that one again - please.

[Diamond]

I don't know if I'm the first to say this or not, but
WHAT PART OF "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND?

[caltrop]

Didn't Bush say something about "over my dead body" and then signed this anyway?

[DustyMoment]

According to Rush, this ruling by the SC ASSUMES that those who contribute to political campaigns support/encourage government corruption. Not only have the free speech rights of the average citizen been trampled on by the very government body charged with interpreting the Constitution and supporting the 1st Amendment, the SC has also violated another fundamental American right of juris prudence; innocent until proven guilty. By issuing a ruling that substantiates the political donation restrictions of McCain-Feingold, the Court is, in essence, issuing a blanket statement that all Americans who donate to political campaigns are corrupt and support or influence political corruption via their contribution.

It is time to start hitting the ballot box hard. Wew should also not forget that Congress passed it and Bush signed it with the assurance that the Court would overturn the prohibitions against free speech.

Well, folks, they didn't. We know what we need to do.

[Uncle Hal]

A caller asked Rush today if he thought this ruling would affect Rush and other conservative talk show hosts. Rush said he assumes the liberals would try and restrict his right to comment on the election during the critical few weeks ahead of the election but they would fight any such order. Bush signing this bill into law was a big mistake. I am sure he assumed that the USSC would rule the most onerous parts of it illegal. There is a lesson to be learned here.