Court loosens limits on election ads (Goodbye to 30 and 60 day restrictions on issue ads!)

yahoo.com ^ | June 25, 2007 | MARK SHERMAN

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link & text.

[elizabetty]

Nah. If he'd have done that, they'd have had to revisit McConnell.

So now you like judicial activists and judicial supremacists?

Sheesh!!!

Your inconsistencies and complete lack of the understanding of the court have never been more clear.

I hate to break this to you, John G. Roberts, Jr is about a million times smarter than you and a far better steward of the Constitution than you and your rabble rouser buddies could ever be.

[elizabetty]

I don’t think he said that.

Huck, don't sit and guess what you think it said, read the damn thing.

The language is CLEAR!

[elizabetty]

From the Chief in the decision yesterday.

"In drawing that line, the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it. We conclude that the speech at issue in this as-applied challenge is not the “functional equivalent” of express campaign speech. We further conclude that the interests held to justify restricting corporate campaign speech or its functional equivalent do not justify restricting issue advocacy, and accordingly we hold that BCRA §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases. "

[Huck]

We conclude that the speech at issue in this as-applied challenge is not the “functional equivalent” of express campaign speech.

In other words, the law was misapplied. It's fine to restrict campaign speech, he is saying. But issue ads that don't call on ppl to vote for someone aren't campaign speech. Were it the functional equivelant, the other side would have won.

[EternalVigilance]

It’s pretty clear that you don’t understand the meaning of those terms any more than a run-of-the-mill Democrat would.