Posted on 09/28/2005 9:56:46 PM PDT by Kryptonite
Washington - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a case pitting a Wisconsin anti-abortion group against the landmark 2002 campaign law co-authored by U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold.
...
The McCain-Feingold law was upheld only two years ago, but that ruling came on a 5-4 vote.
...
In the Wisconsin Right to Life case, the organization launched an ad campaign last year knowing it would force a test of the law's reach. The ads asked people in the state to telephone Feingold and U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl and urge them to oppose efforts to block Bush's judicial nominees.
Though the ads didn't criticize either senator, they fell afoul of the law's definition of "electioneering." Under that definition, any radio or TV ads aired within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and that name a federal candidate, face disclosure rules and fund-raising limits. Among other things, such ads can't be paid for with corporate money, as the Wisconsin Right to Life ads were.
Because Feingold was up for re-election, the mention of his name triggered the law.
"We felt it was a real clear case before the court that showed the absurdity of the law," said Barbara Lyons, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "Our ads were very clear. They said nothing about an election. They weren't critical of Kohl or Feingold. Of course, it's absurd you can mention Kohl but not Feingold."
...
"We have a campaign finance law that on its face shields incumbent politicians from being lobbied on upcoming votes," said Jim Bopp, the group's attorney and a vocal legal critic of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as McCain-Feingold.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Both Senators are Democrats.
Why is it always "anti-abortion" vs. "pro-choice"?
I simply hate the cowardice of the abortionists.
At least, the supporters should be honest.
Do you know which of the eight justices voted to grant cert? If it is four lefties, this may be an attempt to solidify the gutting the first amendment took in the original CFR case before the O'Conner replacement takes office. (It's likely that it will take a lot longer to replace O'Conner than it did to replace Rehnquist.) Until then, all five justices who voted against applying the first amendment to political speech (gross overgeneralization alert) are still on the court.
I suspect a few of the justices may have realized the stupidity of their earlier decision.
I do not know. Is that breakdown public information?
The contention is always between "life-defenders" and "murderers"!
Since they will both vote "YEA" to John Roberts as Chief Justice, I guess this ad campaign was not successful.
They both DID vote YEA already.
"Why is it always "anti-abortion" vs. "pro-choice"?
I simply hate the cowardice of the abortionists.
At least, the supporters should be honest."
I am for keeping the "pro-choice" terminology in place. Except that when saying you are pro-choice you add, "And I choose life." Of course this throws the ball back at the liberals to now say they are pro-death.
Huh? If they voted yes they voted to not block the nominee, which is what the ads wanted.
They both voted to CONFIRM John Roberts.
Which is exactly what the ads wanted, right?
YES, Yes, Yes!! I read it wrong (Three times!). Thanks for pointing that out.
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.