Court Shakes Up Campaign-Finance Law ... (Good day for the First Amendment)

NY Sun ^ | June 27, 2008 | Josh Gerstein

[IrishMike]

The future of public financing for American political campaigns is in grave doubt after the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a legal provision that raises contribution limits for congressional candidates who face wealthy, self-funded opponents.

While yesterday's 5-4 ruling against the so-called Decision Likely To Undermine Political Viability of Public Financing

Millionaire's Amendment did not directly affect the legality of public financing, the decision is likely to undermine the political viability of such efforts by leaving them largely unable to adjust to free-spending candidates. In addition, one leading expert on election law said the justices' rationale could jeopardize all campaign finance regulation by endangering the ban on corporate and union gifts to federal campaigns.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, concluded that the government had no business trying to level the financial playing field between rich candidates and those less well-to-do.

"Different candidates have different strengths. Some are wealthy; others have wealthy supporters who are willing to make large contributions. Some are celebrities. Some have the benefit of a well-known family name," Justice Alito wrote, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. "Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of the election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not the Congress, the power to choose the members of the House ... and it is dangerous business to use the election laws to influence the voters' choices."

[gunnedah]

All they need to do now is declare lobbyibg illegal and gifts in any amount so. The people that elect these scoundrels should have equal time as lobbyist or anyone else. They call themselves public servants when in effect the only people they serve are themselves and their families. DC needs to fall along with K street. By the way do you see where the Democrats are lobbying the lobbyist for their business,yes I kid you not.

[TomGuy]

One of the guys who 'authored' the CFR crap legislation wants to be President.

This is the 3rd or 4th time the Courts have ruled AGAINST provisions of CFR.

Both men [Feingold & McCain] noted the Millionaire's Amendment was not part of the initial bill. Mr. McCain's statement did not acknowledge that he was among those who supported the floor amendment that the Senate passed, 70-30, in 2001. [Emphasis added]

[SoConPubbie]

Both men [Feingold & McCain] noted the Millionaire's Amendment was not part of the initial bill. Mr. McCain's statement did not acknowledge that he was among those who supported the floor amendment that the Senate passed, 70-30, in 2001. [Emphasis added]

It is a sad day for conservatives, the GOP, and America, that we are left with two such miserable choices for President of the US, partly because the elite of our party, the GOP, could not give up their love of the Illegal Aliens.

We are left with a choice between a Marxist and a Populist/Big Government/Socialist.

[kbennkc]

We are left with a choice between a Marxist and a Populist/Big Government/Socialist.

I am thankful any comparisons to National Socialism are off limits due to the absence of any appearance of efficiency .

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

One of the guys who 'authored' the CFR crap legislation wants to be President.

Yeah, and a current President idiotically signed it.

[An Old Man]

"By the way do you see where the Democrats are lobbying the lobbyist for their business,yes I kid you not."

That might be encouraging. When you have rotting produce (Socialism) to sell, it's always good to get someone else to help sell it. When you go looking for help, maybe the stock you hold is past its prime. Just some food for thought.

[ContraryMary]

"Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of the election. The Constitution, however, confers upon voters, not the Congress, the power to choose the members of the House..."

Words of wisdom.