Posted on 04/29/2005 5:51:28 PM PDT by wagglebee
When it comes time for the inevitable legal challenge to the latest iteration of the First Amendment-trampling legislation known as campaign finance "reform," we hope the Supreme Court takes a careful look at a dispatch in yesterday's issue of Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Capitol Hill. Dating back to their egregious 1976 error in the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo, the justices have held that the public interest in preventing corruption is adequate to allow limits on campaign contributions, that is, restrictions on political speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment.
Since then, the slope has gotten so slippery that politicians have dropped nearly all the pretense that these rules are about preventing corruption. Instead, they've become increasingly candid about acknowledging that the laws are shaped to protect incumbent politicians. The latest move afoot in Congress is to limit sharply contributions to groups such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which are known as 527 organizations. In the Roll Call article, Senator Lott may have been unintentionally candid when, as the paper reports, he said, "his first priority was taking care of this '527 business before we're all embarrassed.'"
Well, the First Amendment protects the freedom of political speech, not the right of politicians to be free of embarrassment.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
If the SCOTUS cannot realize that these laws trample our free speech rights, then every right we have is in jeopardy.
Every right we have is in jeopardy.
You're right and in order for them to be preserved, judges who abide by our Constitution must be put on the bench.
They very much see themselves this way. Now they are moving to enact it into law in contradiction of the US Constitution. They already have the franking privilege for sending out propaganda, their own taxpayer paid health care which John Edwards admitted is much more that we can afford for ordinary citizens, automatic pay increases (thanks to Dick Gephardt's late night slight of hand), junket travel to exotic locations...but I grow fatigued just thinking about it all. Just one more. Dick Gephardt had tons spent on covering their personal underground tram so their hair would not be messed on the way to the floor.
They have always had franking privileges, it just took them a long time to realize that most people discard their crap with the rest of the junk mail.
LMAO!
Ping
While SCOTUS certainly deserves condemnation - even impeachment - for the outrage of McCain/Feingold, the fact remains that our so-called great "conservative" of a president willingly signed the law. There was no real support of this law among the public, but only the astroturf support generated by Soros and company.
Why is it that every time this stupid, unconstitutional law is mentioned here that the Republican congress and Republican president who enabled its passage given a pass?
1. Assuring incumbents can be reelected by limiting the ability of opponents to get their message out.
2. Being able to get winners you don't like out of office by indicting them for trivial violations of complex rules.
I don't think you're allowed to say that, but I'll check.
I'm sorry to say that we're screwed now regardless of which party is in power.
Exactly. The only thing having Republicans in charge has bought us is a slight slowdown of the train taking us headlong into the abyss of tyranny of the aristocracy. I don't understand why more people don't see this.
I don't either.
I don't remember who made the statement, but some astute person once remarked that "the Democrats will drive the nation over a cliff at 100 MPH, while the Republicans will drive us over at the speed limit."
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.