Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS: restrictions on corp/union-funded campaignads loosened
CNN ^ | 6/25/07 | CNN

Posted on 06/25/2007 7:40:12 AM PDT by raccoonradio

The Supreme Court loosened restrictions today on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: ads; campaignads; cfr; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
To: Redbob
They'd call ending world hunger "a defeat for the Bush Administration."

This actually was a defeat for the Bush administration. Bush was very much on the side of Ginsberg and Souter on this.

From the AP article, "The Bush administration urged the court to ban the ads, arguing that they were meant to influence the elections, not lobby the senators."

41 posted on 06/25/2007 12:12:28 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
I thought President Bush was the root of all evil for expecting the SCOTUS to do exactly what it just did?

Bush was not expecting the SCOTUS to do this - his administration is very much against this ruling.

At one time I believed Bush as well, but now I see that it was just a way to pass the buck.

42 posted on 06/25/2007 12:14:13 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

It could be an opportunity for Fred Thompson.

He can now say something to this effect to his advantage.


43 posted on 06/25/2007 12:36:03 PM PDT by RockinRight (Our 44th President will be Fred Dalton Thompson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

And why should corporations and unions get to talk about politics before an election, while individuals and non-profits are still apparently forbidden to?

And why do black ministers and Democrats get to preach politics from the pulpit right up to election day, while priests and bishops and white Evangelicals are forbidden to do so?

This whole law should have been shot down the first time it came before the court.


44 posted on 06/25/2007 12:39:50 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

agreed!


45 posted on 06/25/2007 12:40:39 PM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

The damage done by Liberals on the Court will take generations to correct.


46 posted on 06/25/2007 12:56:10 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nyconse

‘Thank God-free speech is what America is about.”

Don’t be to sure. The dem’s and een Trent Lott are talking about putting talk radio out of control the monster is back and ou tof control.


47 posted on 06/25/2007 12:59:53 PM PDT by bilhosty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentIsTheProblem

Greetings GovernmentIsTheProblem:

Freedom contains responsibility for one’s actions therefore “clear and present danger” clauses are limitations to free speech. For example, one does not falsely yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

Society also determined minors make poor decisions with drug use, so we don’t allow tobacco use until eighteen, nor alcohol until twenty-one. And marijuana use remains illegal.

Bottom line, when parents send their children off to school, it is under the pretext schools will help mold them into good citizens. Enforcing the law demonstrates there are consequences for poor behavior.

Cheers,
OLA


48 posted on 06/25/2007 1:08:51 PM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (Truth was the first casualty in the MSM's war on President Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio
Isn't "conservative" legislation from the bench still legislation from the bench?

Just askin'....

49 posted on 06/25/2007 1:12:23 PM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

The entire thing wasn’t unconstutional though. They can only rule against the unconstitutional parts.


50 posted on 06/25/2007 1:22:07 PM PDT by cake_crumb (May I never live to see the day America has a 'popular war'. God bless our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
The entire thing wasn’t unconstutional though. They can only rule against the unconstitutional parts.

Yet Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy believe the whole thing is unconstitutional. What parts do you believe to be constitutional?

51 posted on 06/25/2007 1:33:01 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: bilhosty

I heard about that. I can not believe this could get through. If they think immigration cost them, let them try this.


52 posted on 06/25/2007 1:44:57 PM PDT by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: unspun
"Isn't 'conservative' legislation from the bench still legislation from the bench? "

Yes. Some conservatives seem to have forgotten that.

53 posted on 06/25/2007 1:47:00 PM PDT by cake_crumb (May I never live to see the day America has a 'popular war'. God bless our troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

The unionists never abided by the McLame Feinfool provisions anyway.


54 posted on 06/25/2007 3:51:23 PM PDT by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
To: wagglebee
This case was an as-applied challenge not a facial challenge.

Tossing out the entire BCRA in THIS as-applied challenge would be judicial activism.
55 posted on 06/25/2007 10:17:23 AM PDT by elizabetty (Perpetual Candidate using campaign donations for your salary - Its a good gig if you can get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

55 posted on 06/25/2007 4:45:09 PM PDT by Rick_Michael (Fred Thompson....IMWITHFRED.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Rick_Michael

Oh puhleeze. They’re supposed to rule according to the Constitution. To rule according the Constitution is not judicial activism.


56 posted on 06/25/2007 5:01:46 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Whatever you say....

forget process....just wing-it guys.

‘Judges are not politicians.’


57 posted on 06/25/2007 5:25:11 PM PDT by Rick_Michael (Fred Thompson....IMWITHFRED.COM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Rick_Michael

In this case, it looks like it was Roberts and Alito who were winging it. “The Constitution? What’s that?”


58 posted on 06/25/2007 5:28:35 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
"I am very skeptical of Bush's appointees."

What? Please pass whatever your smoking to the right hand side... Because I want some. Bush's appointees have been nothing short of great. I would say 95% of their rulings have been exactly what people like Mark Levin said they would be.. Fantastic.

59 posted on 06/25/2007 6:27:18 PM PDT by cdnerds (cdnerds.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser

I’d thank Bush for Roberts and Alito, but if Bush had vetoed that abomination in the first place it wouldn’t be an issue.


60 posted on 06/25/2007 7:23:26 PM PDT by rottndog (This Tagline currently closed for maintenance and rehabilitation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson