Skip to comments.
Court loosens limits on election ads (Goodbye to 30 and 60 day restrictions on issue ads!)
yahoo.com ^
| June 25, 2007
| MARK SHERMAN
Posted on 06/25/2007 8:46:09 AM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-126 next last
The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections.IMHO, this knocks out the 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election restriction on issue ads.
1
posted on
06/25/2007 8:46:14 AM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
Do they think that if they saturate us early, we won’t be so excited about bad proposals?
2
posted on
06/25/2007 8:47:28 AM PDT
by
bannie
To: neverdem
Another example of why the selection of judges, wherever, is soooooooo important!
3
posted on
06/25/2007 8:49:08 AM PDT
by
GoldCountryRedneck
("Flying is like Life: Know where you are, where you're going, and how to get there." - 'Ol Dad)
To: neverdem
"This Really Pisses Me Off!! "
To: neverdem
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said only that the Wisconsin group's ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads and are not covered by the court's 2003 decision. This is interesting. In fact, it appears it does NOT do away with the restrictions at all. It merely says that the ads in question were not campaign ads. In fact, if you read the article, apparantly it's not even clear that Alito and Roberts would overturn CFR on speech grounds.
5
posted on
06/25/2007 8:50:47 AM PDT
by
Huck
(Soylent Green is People.)
To: neverdem
I disagree. I think the decision is more limited than that. It is good news for free speech, in that it does loosen the restrictions but it upholds the general principle. Groups will just need to be more clever in the way they present the ads. I don’t think we’ll return to the 2000 ads where Bush is dragging James Byrd by the back of his pickup truck but we will probably see anti-candidate ads thinly disguised as issue ads.
6
posted on
06/25/2007 8:50:48 AM PDT
by
Tall_Texan
(Global warming? Hell, in Texas, we just call that "summer".)
To: Congressman Billybob
Am I reading this right? The story is rather skimpy, but this has the most text that I can find.
7
posted on
06/25/2007 8:50:50 AM PDT
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
It appears that the bad news is that Roberts and Alito didn’t go along with Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy, because it seems that the three of them were ready to scrap McCain-Feingold altogether.
8
posted on
06/25/2007 8:51:03 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: neverdem
Email your pro-amnesty senators NOW!
Tell them “guess what, The Supreme Court has just ruled that we WILL be allowed to remind the electorate immediately before the next election about the treachery you are currently engaged in”.
9
posted on
06/25/2007 8:51:27 AM PDT
by
Wil H
(Islam - the religion of perpetual outrage.)
To: GoldCountryRedneck
Yea, I wonder why Roberts and Alito were unwilling to overturn the 30 and 60 day speech limits. Instead, all they said was this ad wasnt a campaign ad. The other conservatives were ready to overturn. Wonder what went wrong with Roberts/Alito.
10
posted on
06/25/2007 8:52:06 AM PDT
by
Huck
(Soylent Green is People.)
To: wagglebee
Exactly. All they did was say this ad wasn’t a campaign ad. And they apparantly balked on overturning it on speech grounds.
11
posted on
06/25/2007 8:52:57 AM PDT
by
Huck
(Soylent Green is People.)
To: neverdem
12
posted on
06/25/2007 8:53:03 AM PDT
by
Valin
(History takes time. It is not an instant thing.)
To: Valin
History takes time. It is not an instant thing Reading takes time, too. The news ain't that great.
13
posted on
06/25/2007 8:53:49 AM PDT
by
Huck
(Soylent Green is People.)
To: Huck
And raises a possible “red flag” on Roberts and Alito.
14
posted on
06/25/2007 8:54:34 AM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: Huck
I think there is a doctrine in the Supreme Court where of a constitutional issue can be avoided, they will do so utilizing other grounds to reach the same result. That Roberts and Alito deferred to this protocol is not surprising...
15
posted on
06/25/2007 8:55:02 AM PDT
by
eureka!
(The 'rats have made their choice in the WOT and honest history will not be kind to them...)
To: neverdem
Why don’t we just do away with Congress
and mail our “suggestions” to USSC and be
done with it? Just think how many Mexicans
we could provide food, health care and SS for.
16
posted on
06/25/2007 8:56:42 AM PDT
by
WKB
(It's hard to tell who's more afraid of Fred Thompson; The Dims or the rudibots.)
To: eureka!
It’s like the lefty law prof (I forget his name) said “Alito does not overturn, he eviscerates.
17
posted on
06/25/2007 8:57:33 AM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(Kill Bill II, The Night of the Living Dead Amnesty.)
To: Huck
It could simply be a case where Roberts and Alito felt that they couldn’t overturn the provisions because the provisions in question were not pertinent to the issue that was before the court.
If that is the case, then they are indeed Justices that judge each case on it’s merits and are strictly behaving as interpretors of the law.
To: neverdem
The only real campaign finance reform is to eliminate the elections, and the campaigns that go with them.
Repeal the 17th amendment and eliminate 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years. Without the elections, there are no campaigns, and no need for campaign financing.
There are no issue ads, no hard vs. soft money, no complicated 501(c)(3) regulations to navigate through.
Simple concept, huh?
Repeal the 17th amendment -- It's the "Fairness Doctrine for Congress!"
-PJ
19
posted on
06/25/2007 8:57:43 AM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
To: Wil H
I think that all this means is that IF an issue is before congress for a vote, and IF it happens to be during the 60 day campaign season, THEN a group may run an add asking people to contact their rep. to vote for or against it. So unless the congress decides to put up a vote on immigration during that golden period, then you may run and issue ad against it, but you can't run an ad that says "Vote against Senator X, because he is for amnesty"
20
posted on
06/25/2007 8:57:54 AM PDT
by
codercpc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-126 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson