With Special Guest…
Author, editor, columnist and myth-debunker
Richard Poe!
Posted on 12/11/2003 5:59:52 PM PST by nickcarraway
WASHINGTON - The legal wrangling over campaign finance restrictions is far from over, despite the Supreme Court's endorsement of the broadest limits on campaign donations in nearly 30 years.
Justices invited opponents of the law to come back later with proof that parts of the new campaign law, as applied, are unconstitutional.
But unless there is a showing of harm, the divided court said Wednesday, the nation is better off with limits on the financial influence of deep-pocket donors even if money can never be divorced from politics.
The ruling means the restrictions put in place by Congress last year will apply to the 2004 election, including the first presidential delegate selection contests in Iowa and New Hampshire next month.
The court ruled 5-4 that rooting out corruption, or even the appearance of it, justifies limitations on the free speech and free spending of contributors, candidates and political parties. Justices also divided 5-4 to uphold the federal campaign law's restrictions on political advertising in the weeks before an election.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, writing in a rare joint opinion, said they were "under no illusion that (the law) 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."
Indeed, that already has happened, with groups being formed to collect donations and spend money in ways not covered by the law.
"Outside special interest groups have become the modern-day political parties. Soft money is not gone — it has just changed its address," said the law's main congressional opponent, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
A lower court fight is already under way over regulations that law sponsors say open loopholes in the law's restrictions on the large political contributions known as "soft money."
Reps. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Marty Meehan, D-Mass., filed suit last year challenging the Federal Election Commission's interpretation of the new law. The high court ruling allows that lawsuit to go forward in a federal court.
The Stevens-O'Connor ruling was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Dissenting were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
Scalia called it "a sad day for the freedom of speech" and warned that incumbents would pass more restrictions on speech, to protect their incumbency. "We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy," he wrote.
The justices struck down two provisions of the law — a ban on political contributions from those too young to vote and a limitation on some party spending that is independent of a particular candidate.
It took the Supreme Court just three months to decide the case, which the justices wrapped up in about 300 pages, including three separate opinions addressing different parts of the law. By comparison, the three-judge panel that reviewed the case first devoted nearly 1,700 pages to it.
The law passed by Congress last year was the broadest reform since 1974, when President Ford signed a law creating the Federal Election Commission in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It limited individual and political action committee contributions to candidates to $1,000 and $5,000 per election, respectively.
Soft money donations were not included in the law, and the parties exploited the loophole. In the last election cycle, the three Democratic campaign committees raised about $246 million in soft money, compared with $250 million for Republicans.
Soft money is a catchall term for money not subject to existing federal caps on the amount individuals may give and which is outside the old law that prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign donations.
The 2002 campaign finance law is often known as "McCain-Feingold" — named for its chief Senate sponsors, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. McCain built his maverick 2000 presidential campaign largely around the assertion that the old system was full of holes.
Feingold said the ruling could energize efforts for public financing of campaigns and requirements that television stations offer free air time.
"The whole ruling really helps further campaign finance legislation because it gets away from the irrational fear that doing anything about it gets into free speech problems," he said.
Said McCain Thursday: "I can assure all Americans that no longer can a member of Congress or a senator pick up the phone and call a trial lawyer, a corporate head of a union leader and say write me a six or seven-figure check and, by the way, your legislation is coming up soon."
Appearing on NBC's "Today" show, McCain said the majority opinion of the court said "there's reams of evidence that shows that this kind of big money has a corrupting — either actual corruption or appearance of corruption — in the way that we do business here in Washington."
The case McConnell v. FEC, 02-1674.
Its application to this country.
He publically stated it.
Besides, the whole concept of a Supreme Court is repulsive when examined in the light of democratic norms.
If we just remove this part from the Constitution, what else do remove? There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way the Constitution is written, but with the integrity of the people who have been placed in those positions of power.
I hear this same line of reasoning by the Gun Control crowd claiming that the 2nd Amendment is just a relic of bygone era. They figure its outdated so why not just take it out?
It's important to remember that it's those checks and balances within the Constitution are what have maintained our Republic for this long. In the words of Benjamin Franklin is, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." So how about we keep the Supreme Court and fix the people on the bench?
Yah, now she's on the same side as Bush...
We're not safe at any time anymore.
Not at all
cake_crumb wrote:Why would he expect SCOTUS to honor their oaths of office if he wasn't willing to honor his own oath of office? I never understood that excuse.
For some reason, he really expected thebad parts to be struck down by the SCOTUS. And so they would have been if the SCOTUS was doing it's job. Instead, the SCOTUS is doing the fascists' job.
It would have been so easy for Bush to have vetoed this. Not to mention that it was the right thing to do.
He simply could have shown that NAACP ad with the pickup truck and said, "I might not have liked this, but I believe they had a right to produce it and show it on television. This law is un-American because it makes ads like that illegal." It wasn't that hard to explain, and it wouldn't have cost much "political capital" to either eliminate this crap altogether, or to get a better law with the most blatantly unconstitutional provisions removed.
Instead, he put his party above the Constitution, and that's unacceptable from anyone. Democrats do that and that's why I don't vote for Democrats. I expected better from Bush.
cake_crumb wrote:Actually, what part of the First Amendment didn't Bush understand.
What part of the First Amendment does the SCOTUS not understand?
This was kind of predictable for SCOTUS. The decision is perfectly inline with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What more do Americans think they deserve from SCOTUS?
All of it, apparently.
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.