A victory for the First

The Washington Times ^ | June 28, 2006 | Masthead Editorial

[neverdem]

    The Supreme Court dealt a much deserved blow to unduly restrictive campaign-finance laws on Monday. Randall v. Sorrell, although a multiheaded Medusa of an opinion, helps define what an unreasonable limitation on the amount of money spent on political campaigns looks like.

    It looks like Vermont's. By a 6-3 margin, the court overturned that state's campaign-finance law. Though never implemented because of legal challenges, it sought uniquely low limits on spending. Gubernatorial hopefuls would have been capped at $300,000 and state senators at $4,000, while individual donors would have been limited in their givings to a maximum of $400 for any candidate for state office and $200 for state legislators. Former Gov. Howard Dean and a bevy of liberal activist groups -- including Common Cause, Vermont PIRG and the National Voting Rights Institute -- had piled behind the law because its strict approach fit nicely into their program of legislating money out of politics. They also viewed the Vermont law as a promising export to less "progressive" states.

    But the numbers were simply too low and too restrictive. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that the "disproportionately severe" Vermont restrictions "would reduce the voice of the political parties to a whisper." The law also likely would have become an incumbent-protection device, he noted, by handcuffing challengers who spend liberally to offset the advantages of incumbency.

    Vermont activists in favor had previously argued the states-rights perspective: that Green Mountain voters simply prefer to see less money in state politics. Thankfully, the nod toward states rights, though touching, didn't convince the Supreme Court, not with the serious First Amendment implications. Of course, the three justices who dissented (John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) would have been quite comfortable with the implications.

    Liberal activists...

[nmh]

I didn't read the entire article however I see no reason why there should be any restrictions on donating to a campaign. Money is a VOICE. There should be NO restrictions on that financial VOICE. Let people put their money where their ideology is.

[TheConservator]

The scary part of this story is that there were three dissenters--i.e., three supreme court judges who have no clue about the first amendment.

[nmh]

"Of course, the three justices who dissented (John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) would have been quite comfortable with the implications."

Since when did these liberals have any regards for the rights of others when THEY don't agree with you. It's very typical of liberals to want to silence you. They don't care about their blatant hypocrisy. Ideally the First Amendment in any form, should ONLY apply to godless liberals.

[Jaysun]

I didn't read the entire article however I see no reason why there should be any restrictions on donating to a campaign. Money is a VOICE. There should be NO restrictions on that financial VOICE. Let people put their money where their ideology is.

Right. Who else would we have influence politics? The people that have no money and want it given to them?

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" They don't care about their blatant hypocrisy. Ideally the First Amendment in any form, should ONLY apply to godless liberals. "

BINGO !!

Hypocrisy rules the Liberals and they are not even bothered or ashamed, they they live by it, in fact ? they flaunt it.
Look at how the homosexuals demand " their " rights, but, deny others in their bogus so called " Hate Speech " argument.
Were , they can condemn Christians in their hate speech, or if they were in power of the government they would persecute Christians for just preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
In the Democrats/Liberals/MSM minds, Free Speech only applies to them.
Liberalism in nothing but another form of Nazism/ Communism cloaked in a different package.

[lepton]

however I see no reason why there should be any restrictions on donating to a campaign.

I do. I think that only people should be able to give to campaigns, and perhaps even only people who can vote or will be able to vote in an election - at least citizens.