Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 09/12/2007 7:45:39 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - A federal judge struck down campaign finance regulations Wednesday that govern when candidates and independent groups can coordinate their political messages. The judge called on the Federal Election Commission to write stricter rules in time for the 2008 elections.
The decision marks the second time that U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has invalidated the FEC regulations as too lenient. They were drafted in response to a landmark 2002 law that restricts political donations.
Kollar-Kotelly said the FEC regulations too narrowly apply to coordinated advertising that takes place within 90 days of a congressional election or 120 days before a presidential election.
The regulations unreasonably ignore advertising run outside those windows, the judge said.
The FEC argued that its regulations covered almost all of the independent political advertising that occurs in a campaign cycle. Critics said that the agency created a loophole for advertising that falls outside FEC regulations and ignored the expansion of political campaigns into year-round events.
Kollar-Kotelly also found fault with FEC regulations governing state and local political party activities to encourage people to register to vote and actually show up at the polls. The lawsuit said that when those activities benefit candidates for Congress and president, the parties should be unable to use soft, or unrestricted, money to pay for them.
The lawsuit was filed by Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., a prime sponsor of the 2002 law. The lawsuit is not affected by the Supreme Court's decision in June that made it easier to run independent advertising close to elections.
The commission consists of three Democrats and three Republicans appointed by the president.
The regulations unreasonably ignore advertising run outside those windows, the judge said.
Your honor, are you not ignoring the First Amendment of the Constitution and its assurance of free speech?
Yes, you are. Just like any petty totalitarian.
“Kolleen Kollar-Kotelly?”
You’re not making this up?
She’s gotta be a Clintoon appointee...
BINGO! 1997 Clintoon appointee
Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen
Born 1943 in New York, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 7, 1997, to a seat vacated by Harold H. Greene; Confirmed by the Senate on March 20, 1997, and received commission on March 26, 1997.
Education:
Catholic University of America, B.A., 1965
Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, J.D., 1968
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Catherine Kelly, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1968-1969
Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Appellate Section, 1969-1972
Chief legal counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, 1972-1984
Associate judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 1984-1997
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Female
Odd. Her initials are K K K.
lol.. Nice try but it is C K K
She spells it Colleen altho I have seen Kolleen as a given name as well.
It’s not my fault - honest. I was just going by Redbob’s spelling. Honest. I swear. Really.
LOL.. no problemo.. really. :-)
They ought to have a 3 dimbulb strikes and you’re off the bench for litigating from the bench.
This is what we get with these liberal females with those hymenated names.
yup, bifurcated names are a bit much sometimes .. bet ya she’s a blonde. ;-)
I thought judges could only say yes and no, not order something like this
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
If she was born in 1943 she's probably grey or white haired.
Yes, you are. Just like any petty totalitarian.
Worse. The mechanism of "due process" puts us to sleep.
I’m probably gonna beat up just for asking this and maybe I deserve it.
But we aren’t talking about an independent group advertising - i.e. like Free Republic. We are talking about supposedly independent groups actually taking orders from a candidate.
If we limit candidate spending at all should that not include sock puppets?
Now, maybe we should not have spending limits at all but if we have them, should they not be fair?
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.