Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Campaign Finance Excerpts
Yahoo! Inc ^ | Wed Dec 10, 5:27 PM ET | Rehnquist, Scalia ,Thomas, Kennedy & others

Posted on 12/11/2003 8:26:27 AM PST by Federalist 78

Excerpts from the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Wednesday upholding key parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA, signed by Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites), and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites), and dissents from the other four court members:

Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, in upholding key parts of the campaign finance law:

"Many years ago we observed that `to say that Congress is without power to pass appropriate legislation to safeguard ... an election from the improper use of money to influence the result is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection.' We abide by that conviction in considering Congress' most recent effort to confine the ill effects of aggregated wealth on our political system. We are under no illusion that BCRA will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."

Dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:

"The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the `close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties' makes all donations to the national parties `suspect.' But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech, is not a surrogate for corruption; it is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands Congress' ability to regulate political speech..."

"No doubt Congress was convinced by the many abuses of the current system that something in this area must be done. Its response, however, was too blunt."

Dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites):

"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restriction upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government..."

"The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy."

Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas (news - web sites):

"The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press... Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections. Nor is there any doubt that media companies often wish to influence elections. One would think that the New York Times fervently hopes that its endorsement of presidential candidates will actually influence people. What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is `too influential,' and that the `appearance of corruption' is significant when the media organizations endorse candidates or run `slanted' or `biased' news stories in favor of candidates or parties?"

 

 

Justices Stevens and O'Connor:

"Just as troubling to a functioning democracy as classic quid pro quo corruption is the danger that officeholders will decide issues not on their merits or the desires of their constituencies, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions valued by the officeholder. Even if it occurs only occasionally, the potential for such undue influence is manifest. And unlike straight cash-for-votes transactions, such corruption is neither easily detected nor practical to criminalize. The best means of prevention is to identify and to remove the temptation."

Dissent by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

"The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people and Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it. The First Amendment commands that Congress `shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.' The command cannot be read to allow Congress to provide for the imprisonment of those who attempt to establish new political parties and alter the civic discourse. ... The Court, upholding multiple laws that suppress both spontaneous and concerted speech, leaves us less free than before. Today's decision breaks faith with our tradition of robust and unfettered debate."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bushscotuscfr; cfr; mccainfeingold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last
McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n V. Amendment I (Speech and Press) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Virginia Declaration of Rights, sec. 12, 12 June 1776

12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick governments.

Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 16 Jan. 1787

The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them. I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did any where. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe.

Congress, Amendments to the Constitution, June--Sept. 1789

[House Debate, 15 Aug.; Annals 1:731, 738]

[Mr. Madison] The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government; the people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may privately advise them, or declare their sentiment by petition to the whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will. If gentlemen mean to go further, and to say that the people have a right to instruct their representatives in such a sense as that the delegates are obliged to conform to those instructions, the declaration is not true.

Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 14 June 1807

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be relied on. I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.

Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.

Fleetwood Mac - Little Lies (lyrics)

If I could turn the page
In time then I'd rearrange
Just a day or two
Close my, close my, close my eyes

But I couldn't find a way
So I'll settle for one day
To belive in you
Tell me, tell me, tell me lies

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh, no, no you can't disguise
(You can't disguise, no you can't disguise)
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies



1 posted on 12/11/2003 8:26:27 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
This is a tough call in my mind. I have no problem deciding that burnig a flag is not a form of free speech, because it is an action, and not speech. So I guess I'd have to say that buying politicians may not be protected speech either.

With a little bit of luck the company I work for will quit houding me to join their PAC which contributes equally to liberals and conservatives.

2 posted on 12/11/2003 8:32:42 AM PST by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

11 Republican Senators, 41 Republican House Members and One Republican President Signed BCRA-2002

11 Republican Senators who voted for the BCFA of 2002:

McCain, Fitzgerald, Lugar, Collins, Snowe, Cochran, Domenicic, Spector, Chafee, Thompson Warner

41 Republican House Members voted for the BCFA of 2002:

Bohlert, Bono, Capito, Castle, Ferguson, Foley, Frelinghausen, Ganske, Gilchrest, Gilman, Graham, Greenwood, Grucci, Houghton, Horn, Johnson(CT), Johnson(IL), Kirk, LaTourette, Leach, LoBiondo, McHugh, Morella, Osborne, Ose, Petri, Platts, Quinn, Ramstad, Ros-Lehtinen, Sanders, Shays, Simmons, Smith(Mi), Thune, Upton, Walsh(not my clan), Wamp, Weldon(Pa), Wolf

One President Signed BCRA of 2002:

President Bush

3 posted on 12/11/2003 8:33:25 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
I seriously think Breyer and O'Conner should be impeached, not for this horrible decision, but for their stated willingness to let international law supercede our own Constitution. This is a violation of their oath of office, which requires them to regard the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
4 posted on 12/11/2003 8:35:03 AM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

So I guess I'd have to say that buying politicians may not be protected speech either.

[House Debate, 15 Aug.; Annals 1:731, 738]

[Mr. Madison] The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government; the people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may privately advise them, or declare their sentiment by petition to the whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will.

5 posted on 12/11/2003 8:35:23 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Does it become something different if you collect $390457349 from a bunch of people and then bribe the guy to vote the way you want him to?
6 posted on 12/11/2003 8:37:13 AM PST by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Law Review Article contains instructions.
7 posted on 12/11/2003 8:37:15 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
THAT WAS ALREADY ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
8 posted on 12/11/2003 8:38:00 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
My point is that our current campaign laws permit it. Plain and simple. The wash the money through committees first, but a bribe is a bribe.
9 posted on 12/11/2003 8:38:54 AM PST by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
"McCain, Fitzgerald, Lugar, Collins, Snowe, Cochran, Domenicic, Spector, Chafee, Thompson, Warner"

The usual suspects . . . As for Bush, signing this bill was a black mark on his presidency, as nominating Souter was a black mark on his father's. Souter has been worse than can ever have been imagined; I don't think he has voted with Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas on any 5-4 decision, ever.
10 posted on 12/11/2003 8:38:56 AM PST by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
You want a Bill of Wrongs to correct the Bill of Rights?
i.e. two wrongs = a right.
11 posted on 12/11/2003 8:42:36 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
McCain, Fitzgerald, Lugar, Collins, Snowe, Cochran, Domenicic, Spector, Chafee, Thompson, Warner

If its any consolation, the GOP Senators I've highlighted are likely to be eliminaed quite soon. Good riddance.

12 posted on 12/11/2003 8:45:01 AM PST by KantianBurke (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
Does anyone know where I can get the full text of the decision and the disent? I like to read the whole thing for myself.
-Andy
Good post
13 posted on 12/11/2003 8:45:17 AM PST by sharpink (righting wrongs real or imagined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sharpink
The first link below the "BOOKMARK" in post #1 is in .pdf format - 298pp.
14 posted on 12/11/2003 8:48:33 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Federalist 78
I don't have all the answers. But a system where the guy is elected and thereby owes the people that paid for his campaign and knows that if he doesn't vote the way the want him to or they'll give their money to someone else next year... is not a good system. It's bribery.

And I don't think that bribery is protected under the 1st ammendment.

So we hope for reform that elimintates bribery.... and yet retains the ability for citizens to criticize, petition, buy adds in the newspaper and all that.

15 posted on 12/11/2003 8:48:46 AM PST by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
Well, McCain/Feingold ain't it.

Any reform that prohibits political speech close to an election is outrageously tyrannical. The NRA is an organization of 4+ million like-minded individuals that should be free to support candidates who support the 2nd Amendment and criticize those that don't.
16 posted on 12/11/2003 8:52:36 AM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
You would have been a good Soviet citizen.
Noun 1. samizdat - a system of clandestine printing and distribution of dissident or banned literature

17 posted on 12/11/2003 8:54:41 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
So I guess I'd have to say that buying politicians may not be protected speech either.

I'd like to suggest that you not think of campaign donations as buying politicians but as self-defense. Since the rise of Big Government politicians have been willing and able to constantly take from those who oppose them and give to those who support them. If people in the politicians' crosshairs are restricted in their ability to buy ads and donate money, they are ripe for the plucking by others. John Lott has published research showing that the primary cause of higher campaign spending is bigger government, and hence more spoils to be divided.

It seems to me that there should be a huge presumption that Americans have a right to resist government confiscation of their wealth via corporate tax breaks, or Medicare prescription drug benefits, or what have you. If there is to be a big redistributionist government, there should be lots of money in politics. And if there weren't, there would be little need for money in politics.

18 posted on 12/11/2003 8:55:09 AM PST by untenured
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader

Any reform that prohibits political speech close to an election is outrageously tyrannical. The NRA is an organization of 4+ million like-minded individuals that should be free to support candidates who support the 2nd Amendment and criticize those that don't.

RJ Rummel agrees!

19 posted on 12/11/2003 8:56:53 AM PST by Federalist 78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader
I think the NRA should be able to support politicians. Should be able to take a stand and say who should be voted for. Should be able to produce voting records and send to its membership. All of those things. Should they be able to buy candidates... to buy votes by giving money to politicians? You know, I don't think so. I don't favor bribery.
20 posted on 12/11/2003 9:00:32 AM PST by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson