Posted on 09/28/2005 5:42:31 AM PDT by OESY
...[T]he Supreme Court agreed to hear campaign-finance and tax cases whose outcome could hinge on the candidate filling the court's second vacancy....
Campaign-finance cases have revealed a philosophical split on the court, with more conservative justices, such as Antonin Scalia, considering political expenditures the functional equivalent of speech, and thus beyond state restriction. More liberal justices, such as Stephen Breyer, have viewed such regulations as lawful means to fight political corruption and keep moneyed interests from drowning out other voices.
One of the political cases challenges a provision of the McCain-Feingold law that prohibits corporations from direct expenditures on electioneering within 60 days of an election.... [A] second Bush appointee could shift the court's balance on McCain-Feingold. Republican appointees... have been "much less willing to uphold campaign-finance laws and willing to find more laws that violate the First Amendment."
The other case involves a Vermont statute stemming from a 1997 inaugural plea by then-Gov. Howard Dean, now chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to "do away with the current system" of campaign finance, where "money does buy access," according to court papers. In response, the Vermont legislature enacted limits of $400 on contributions to state candidates and imposed caps on candidate expenditures for state offices, topping out at $300,000 for gubernatorial campaigns, among other provisions.
But several political groups, mainly conservative organizations..., challenged the limits as unconstitutional, particularly in light of a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that struck down a federal law limiting campaign expenditures. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New York, upheld most of the Vermont act's provisions, finding that the state had shown "sufficiently strong interests" behind its law, in particular that "without expenditure limits, its elected officials have been forced to provide privileged access to contributors in exchange for campaign money."...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
It's nice in theory, I just feel the court is in the business of ramming congressional law down our throats with little care for what the constitution really says.
. . . and if they are any good at all they will.
They've already upheld McCain-Feingold, though. I doubt they are going to change their minds now. Best they can hope for is a little fine tuning.
Hopefully.....I hope this unconstitutional pile of donkey and elephant dung called CFR is thrown onto the trash heap of history.
With two new members, they might do more than that.
Ok, here's your answer----one of the most fantastic candidates you could imagine, Viet Dinh. Check out the links----he's the next John Roberts in the future!!!
http://www.leadingauthorities.com/20767/Viet_Dinh.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/vietdinh.htm
http://www.asianam.org/viet%20dinh.htm
http://www.nndb.com/people/273/000044141/
McCain-Feingold was passed instead of enforcing existing laws. (How much did Klinton's campaign receive from China?)Sarbanes-Oxley was passed instead of enforcing existing laws and professional standards. Both are collectivist, socialist. McCain-Feingold is a violation of free speech. Marx and Lenin would have approved of both. Demo-Rats are socialists and Republicans like McCain are fake capitalists.
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.