Skip to comments.
U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law
Posted on 05/02/2003 12:41:01 PM PDT by RandDisciple
reported 15:38 bloomberg news
TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bcra; campaignfinance; cfr; cfrlist; constitutionallaw; electionlaw; fec; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; mccain; mccainfeingold; mcconnell; misunderestimating; nra; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-226 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
"The court made its ruling effective immediately, barring the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the restrictions it struck down. "
Sounds like someone would have to file for a 'stay' in order for this to NOT go into effect immediately.
101
posted on
05/02/2003 1:14:52 PM PDT
by
justshe
(I'm #6 on the top ten list of lairs!)
To: Wphile
and can't be used as a stupid campaign issue. Yeah, they can't say that Bush wouldn't sign it into law...... : )
To: goldstategop
The one judge who upheld the entire law happened to be a Bill Clinton appointee. Gee...what a surprise. Goes to show how important those judicial appointments are!!
103
posted on
05/02/2003 1:15:39 PM PDT
by
Wphile
(Keep the UN out of Iraq)
To: Wphile
I disagree that he did the right thing. It is never the right thing to sign an unconstitutional law. But right now it doesn't matter. He got lucky, but it isn't over until the SCOTUS sings. I think we will be okay there.
104
posted on
05/02/2003 1:15:46 PM PDT
by
RAT Patrol
(Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
To: RAT Patrol
it isn't over until the SCOTUS sings. I think we will be okay there. Of that, really, I'm about 99.99% positive! : )
To: goldstategop
Thank god for the constitution again!
106
posted on
05/02/2003 1:16:45 PM PDT
by
hoosiermama
(Prayers for all)
To: RandDisciple
Thank God...
To: Wphile
Until we have the opinions, we have no idea what the dissenter dissented on. I think it's most unlikely he would have upheld the whole act.
To: RAT Patrol
I agree. The President let us all down by signing an unconstitutional law. His veto would have probably been sustained. Our entire political system has suffered a black eye since our politicians showed they could not give a damn about the Constitution. I'm sure if our Congresscritters thought they could repeal the First Amendment a majority of them probably would vote today to get rid of it.
109
posted on
05/02/2003 1:18:21 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Dog
You see, the left and their RINOenablers wanted to maintain unlimited free speech for Sarandon, Robbins, Garaffalo, Ferrel, et al who could get free media attention because of their "celebrity", but place hard limits on ordinary folks who were forced to pay cash for their "free" speech.
110
posted on
05/02/2003 1:18:36 PM PDT
by
Oldeconomybuyer
(The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
To: All
To: RAT Patrol
It is never the right thing to sign an unconstitutional law. Well, in principle I agree but in practical terms, since politicians aren't necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed, how do we know if something is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such. Of course, we all knew it was unconstitutional but the dems and McCain certainly didn't think so. Ergo, a ruling was necessary to settle the issue.
112
posted on
05/02/2003 1:18:55 PM PDT
by
Wphile
(Keep the UN out of Iraq)
To: Wphile
The ruling came from a special three-member, fast-track panel of Appeals Court Judge Karen Henderson, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and District Judge Richard Leon. The votes were 2-1 so some idiot wanted to uphold it.
Guess who?
Judge Karen Henderson - appointed by G. H. W. Bush
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly - appointed by Clinton
Judge Richard Leon - appointed by G. W. Bush
To: Oldeconomybuyer
In a 2-1 vote, the court ruled that political parties can raise corporate and union contributions for general party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration but cannot use it for issue advertising. So advertising can still only be run using hard money. That largely favors the GOP.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
But, but, but...I thought they were just speaking as "average americans!" And poor tim robbins was bemoaning the lack of free speech. Yep, he said it and he even said it on national TV in front of the National Press Club!
These hollywood yahoos are such frickin' idiots, it's nauseating. Don't talk to be about free speech buddy as you're talking away on national TV while I can't even get a letter to the editor printed. AAARRRGHHH!
115
posted on
05/02/2003 1:21:36 PM PDT
by
Wphile
(Keep the UN out of Iraq)
To: aristeides; All
another link:
Reform Update:
President Bush's signing of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 is far from the end of the reform story. The coming months will see several court challenges to the new law, as well as efforts by the Federal Election Commission to write the rules that will determine how much of the law works in the real world. Watch this space to keep track of developments on these two fronts.
To: RAT Patrol
The sarcasm was directed at the liberal media and NOT you.
Sorry if there was any misunderstanding at all. You just happened to be the guy I hit reply to. Sorry!
I am happy the hard money is doubled through Bushes' strategy, so that hard working middle class people can re elect him!
117
posted on
05/02/2003 1:22:26 PM PDT
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: goldstategop
Don't Congresscritters take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? How does passing unConstitutional laws fit into such an oath? For that matter, the President does for sure take such an oath. He should be ashamed for having signed an obviously flawed bill into law.
To: jackbill
Hmmm...let me guess. The clinton appointee?
119
posted on
05/02/2003 1:22:33 PM PDT
by
Wphile
(Keep the UN out of Iraq)
To: goldstategop
...our senators knew the entire time what they voted for was flatly unconstitutional. It doesn't say much for their respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, now does it? It took the wedge issue out of McPain's campaign. The neo-com's and media used it to monopolize political reporting (as they do with abortion). Equal time equaled neo-coms ranting about conservatives and abortion then equal time to McPain ranting about contributions.
yitbos
120
posted on
05/02/2003 1:22:37 PM PDT
by
bruinbirdman
(Buy low, sell high)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-226 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson