Supreme Court strikes down part of campaign finance law

Reuters ^

[Redbob]

I’m very sorry; that was a link to the Appeals Court decision, which the Supremes overturned.
Here is the Davis decision:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-320.pdf

[Redbob]

In part, Davis reads:
"If §319(a)’s elevated contribution limits applied across the board to all candidates, Davis would have no constitutional basis for challenging them. Section 319(a), however, raises the limits only for non-self-financing candidates and only when the self-financing candidate’s expenditure of personal funds causes the OPFA threshold to be exceeded."

[marajade]

Well look at this way... as President he can’t write legislation.

[maryz]

If the court is throwing out the restrictions on one group, then it should throw out the restrictions on all groups.

This Court seems to specialize in narrow rulings -- wasn't there another part of McCain-Feingold struck down a while back? But there too the Court didn't take the opportunity to throw out the whole thing.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

especially those in which Republicans are counting on millionaire candidates to counter the recent fund-raising success by Democrats.

The ruling was a victory for Jack Davis, a wealthy Democrat from the Buffalo, N.Y., area who narrowly lost a congressional race in 2006.

One of the most prominent beneficiaries of the law so far has been Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in his 2004 Democratic senatorial primary campaign in Illinois. Obama was able to accept additional contributions because his opponent spent nearly $29 million of his own money.

According to the idiot author of this piece Rich GOP candidates are the ones spending their own money yet every example is a Democrat.

[kabar]

"The law is triggered when a candidate for the House of Representatives spends more than $350,000 in personal funds. The opponent then can gather contributions three times the normal limit from individuals and may coordinate with their political party for additional contributions."

McCain-Feingold eschews the principle that money represents political free speech. Congress tried to intervene on how much an individual can contribute of his own funds to his own campaign by triggering the ability of his opponent to raise more money. That law was struck down, which is a good thing.

All of McCain-Feingold should be struck down. Such Rube Goldberg solutions like this law, which tried to remedy a loophole in the law that allowed individuals to contribute as much as they want to their own campaign, deserve to be voided. Perhaps, some will see the light as to how flawed this legislation is.

It is worth noting that, "The court's majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, struck down the campaign contribution limits on candidates competing for the same congressional seat and the disclosure requirements under the provision at issue. In the first four years the law has been in effect, more than 100 House and Senate candidates faced opponents who spent enough of their personal wealth to trigger the provision."

One of the most prominent beneficiaries of the law so far has been Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in his 2004 Democratic senatorial primary campaign in Illinois. Obama was able to accept additional contributions because his opponent spent nearly $29 million of his own money.

Alito agreed with the arguments by Davis that the law violated the constitutional free-speech rights of self-financed candidates, impermissibly burdening Davis' rights to spend his own money for campaign speech.

The court's liberals -- Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- dissented and said they would have upheld the law.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

And the Catch-22 is that McCain meddles mendaciously while Obama would obliterate.

The RNC does NOT speak for or represent the GOP. Unfaithful messengers used to be removed from positions of trust. Time to do it again, not abandon the GOP to them by going third party or failing to vote.

[AnimalLover]

bump