U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law

[RandDisciple]

reported 15:38 bloomberg news

[ncweaver]

I am grateful everyday for President Bush, but I was VERY disappointed in him when he signed CFR. The Education Bill and the Farm Bill were bad enough, but CFR is unconstitutional..NO Question!! What was worse, he KNEW it was unconstitutional and conservatives were upset but never bothered to give us the explanation of why he signed it that Ari Fleisher promised during a press conference.

[Brandon]

There was also that stupid millionaire's provision. Don't know what happened with that.

It was found to be non-justiciable, so it remains in force.

[leprechaun9]

This was fully expected by everyone with a pulse and a functioning brain.

I would like to see the Ba$tards who sponsored this (i.e., McLame & Feingold) and those that voted for it to be billed for all the leagl expenses caused by this Un-constitutional piece of legislation!

[Hot Tabasco]

U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law

For those on this forum who blasted Pres. Bush for not speaking out against this ridiculous bill, this decision is the reason why.

He knew it from the beginning and now President Bush has been vindicated! Truly brilliant!

[Law]

Can anybody move for a stay of that order until the Supreme Court rules?

The court has not granted a stay, according to electionlaw.blogspot.com, although it could still do so in response to a motion from one of the parties.

[Law]

So, who's the one that voted for both provisions? A clinton appointee no doubt.

The opinions run to almost 1,600 pages total. This is completely unprecedented. It's also a sign that the judges agreed on very little about what parts of the law were valid and what were not. And even when they do agree, they usually do so for different reasons, which explains the number and length of the multiple opinions.

It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort the mess out, but I expect it will also produce multiple, conflicting opinions. We'll see.

[Law]

I'd like to know what court this comes from

It was a special, three judge panel created just for this case by the Bipartisan [sic] Campaign Reform Act (although the particular judges were chosen by random computer selection) BCRA also provides for direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

[Law]

Sounds like someone would have to file for a 'stay' in order for this to NOT go into effect immediately.

Correct.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

You and I are probably singing in the same choir. I'll give Bush credit for infinitely more political savvy than what I have. He is a great leader, of that there's no doubt. I'd love for him to be more conservative, but I have to assume the mans got access to information I don't and there's no doubt he makes decisions very wisely.

[Law]

A good (although not conservative) source for ongoing coverage and commentary is the Election Law blog at:

http://electionlaw.blogspot.com/

[Law]

It was a set of interlocking and contradictory opinions so complex that two of the three federal judges who ruled in the campaign finance case tried to summarize the panel's 20 main holdings in a four-page spreadsheet. The chart itself was nearly incomprehensible.

This is the first paragraph in an excellent legal analysis of the case, at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/politics/03ASSE.html

[Brandon]

Thank you for the link you provided to that election law blog. The more I dig into this and the more I read, the less it looks like a victory for the good guys. I think we need to wait and see what it looks like when the dust has settled and people have had a chance to really read this monstrosity.

[Budge]

Saw it, but late getting here.

Thsnks to both of you!

[Budge]

For those on this forum who blasted Pres. Bush for not speaking out against this ridiculous bill, this decision is the reason why.

He knew it from the beginning and now President Bush has been vindicated! Truly brilliant!

Exactlly! Add to that, Dubya removed a "talking point" that the DemocRATS would surly have used against him.

Can't you hear them? "Bush vetoed this fine bill that would have ended corruption!"

Or, "Bush refused to sign this excellent bill..." see above.

Add to both, "A 'Democratic' president, John 'Fitzgerald' Kerry would sign this fine bill to end corruption forever..."

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thank God for the system in place to uphold the Constitution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Is it me, or are a whole bunch of FReepers still misunderestimating Bush?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Now, continuing the conversation we were having a few months ago, I would like to once again state my position on this Bill.

It will be challenged in the Court system, and the unconstitutional parts struck down, leaving the Democrats with no negative talking point, and McCain with the dubius distinction to having fought for, and achieved the passage of bill that was found to violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But that's just my layman's guess.

Oh!

Wait...!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...but I have to assume the mans got access to information I don't..."

One of you lives here, and the other does not.

I'm betting that the one whose tootbrush is hanging in of those bathrooms, has better info sources.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I don't live there.

[octobersky]

Excellent points!