Court says ampaign law too weak

MyWay ^ | 06-13-08 | Peter Yosk

[em2vn]

A federal appeals court on Friday invalidated campaign finance rules that give wealthy donors broad latitude in underwriting expensive political ads.

Limits on coordinated campaign spending apply too narrowly to time frames just before elections and should be expanded, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in the decision. Judge David Tatel said in the ruling that interest groups often engage in early advertising, in some cases more than a year before an election.

The restrictions the Federal Election Commission imposed apply only to spending within 90 days of a congressional election and 120 days before a presidential primary.

[em2vn]

The courts are pushing us through the looking glass.

[sourcery]

The decision is null and void on its face. Courts have no authority to make law, nor to force Congress to do so.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You are correct. The courts have no authority to order neither the executive nor legislative branches to do anything. It think that it was Andrew Jackson who once said, “The courts have made their decision. Now let them enforce it.”

However, don’t tell them that. They believe they are gods in black robes.

[FoxInSocks]

Limits on coordinated campaign spending apply too narrowly to time frames just before elections and should be expanded

It is not a function of the judiciary to make that determination or enforce it. I grew tired of courts legislating from the bench a long, long time ago.

[EagleUSA]

The courts have no authority to order neither the executive nor legislative branches to do anything.
:::::::
Of course, except for ULTRA-LEFTIST courts which think they can LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH....in the case of liberals, the law means nothing. It is just an obstacle to their oppressive, socialist agenda.

[Dog Gone]

This is quite an amazing decision.

But if they struck down the law without rewriting it, that’s a good thing, no?

[San Jacinto]

The decision is crap, but remember the court is ruling the FEC misapplied the law as Congress wrote it. It is not ordering Congress to amend the law.

[San Jacinto]

it struck down administrative rules, not the campaign finance law itself.

[Dog Gone]

I haven’t read the opinion, only the news article at the link.

It looks to me that if they invalidated the 90 day rule, but didn’t impose a new deadline, there is no deadline, not even two days.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The decision is null and void on its face. Courts have no authority to make law, nor to force Congress to do so.

So long as the executive acts as if he is bound by the courts' rulings, they have as much authority as they dare assert.

[San Jacinto]

I haven’t seen it either. I assume from the blurb the court found the rules to be too lax. I suppose they ordered the commission to come up with better rules. What happens in the interim—I don’t know, but I’ll bet it won’t be “No Rules Now Apply”. Maybe the old rules stay in pending appeal and/or re-drafting???

[San Jacinto]

the FEC's proposed rule would lead to the exact perception and possibility of corruption Congress sought to stamp out," Tatel said.

Now I notice it was a PROPOSED rule that was stricken down.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What is the press? Is it the Associated Press? That, along with its enabling technology the telegraph, dates back only to the middle of the Nineteenth Century. Is it broadcast journalism? Of course not; otherwise the FCC would be out of bounds in imposing licensing requirements on broadcast journalists. Is "the press" objective? None of the Framers would have thought so, since no newspaper of their experience claimed any such thing.

The claim of journalistic objectivity is an artifact of the Associated Press, and the need of AP member newspapers to sell AP newswire stories without having their own reporters on the scene of the story. The AP is a monopoly, as the Supreme Court held in 1945.

The proper way to read the First Amendment, IMHO, is to understand freedom of the press as an individual right to spend whatever money you have at your disposal to propagate whatever religious or political views motivate you. The proper way to read the First Amendment, IOW, is to dismiss "Campaign Finance Reform" out of hand - not only McCain-Feingold, but all restrictions of the right of the people to publish their own opinions with their own money.

[muawiyah]

Judge Tatel is just another leftover Nazi from a different age.