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

Heck, the hard money limits they left in place actually represent an increase, don't they? While I think they shouldn't restrict hard money, an increase is good.

61 posted on 05/02/2003 1:04:34 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)

As I see it, CFR is dead. If you can't limit large soft money donations or restrict speech, CFR is fundamentally broken as currently constructed.

62 posted on 05/02/2003 1:04:54 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)

To: Oldeconomybuyer

It barred the federal government from enforcing them and all other parts of the law it struck down.

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

63 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:05 PM PDT by aristeides

Sounds like the whole thing has been gutted, which means that one of the few sections that survived is the title on severability, which means that if any part of the statute is invalidated, the rest can survive.

Sounds like that is all that is left.

64 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:06 PM PDT by mwl1

Don't know. We'll have to ask a lawyer that one.

65 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:23 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)

will the courts grant a stay until the Supreme Court rules

My understanding, from working in law firms for the past 5 years---there's an automatic stay until the final appellate court makes it decision.

66 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:31 PM PDT by nicmarlo

The law won't enforced until the U.S Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the law. But I think there's little doubt most of its not gonna survive. To make this legal gag on free speech constitutional, you'd have to repeal the First Amendment.

67 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:36 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

Hard money limits were essentially doubled.

68 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:45 PM PDT by mwl1

Sounds like that is all that is left.

What about the increase in individual contribution limits?

69 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:48 PM PDT by aristeides

My guess would be the only part left standing is the upping of the hard money contributions which are inflation adjusted annually now as well.

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

70 posted on 05/02/2003 1:06:49 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)

Hard money limits were essentially doubled. Ahahahahahaha! Which is a very good thing for our side.

71 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:09 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)

To: RandDisciple

www.sfgate.com Return to regular view
WASHN: and beyond.

Friday, May 2, 2003
©2003 Associated Press
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/02/national1605EDT0691.DTL
(05-02) 13:05 PDT (AP) -- The decision is a victory for the Republican National Committee and dozens of interest groups, who contended that the law would undermine their ability to participate in politics. It is a loss for Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin who fought for years to get a new law enacted. They argued that it was time to end the corrupting influence of big money in politics.
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.
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.
Also voting 2-1, the court struck down a provision barring a range of interest groups from airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts in the month before a primary election and within two months of a general election.
The court made its ruling effective immediately, barring the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the restrictions it struck down.
The new campaign finance law took effect Nov. 6, forcing an immediate change in party fund raising.
It prohibited the national party committees from raising contributions known as "soft money" from corporations, unions and others. The Democratic and Republican parties have collected the unlimited checks in ever-increasing amounts: The fall election saw some contributions of $1 million and more. The parties were allowed to use the money on general party-building activities such as voter registration drives and issue ads.

72 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:10 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)

See post 68. I was being slightly sarcastic.

73 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:11 PM PDT by mwl1

Bush knew that the hard money limits would stay as part of the compromise.

Yet the soft money would not past muster with the courts.

OF course, this must just be dumb luck for Bush, since he is so stupid, right?

74 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:19 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)

To: *CFR List; *Silence, America!

75 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:22 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)

I'd like to know what court this comes from and what the ruling was... any dissentions and things like that. Anyone?

Mike

76 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:22 PM PDT by BCR #226

What survived was the increase in the hard money limits. I mean even a 10 year old child could have seen this one coming and our august senators proved to be less intelligent than our kids. They just had to trample on the Constitution to look good in front of the TV cameras.

77 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:49 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

That'd be some irony...

78 posted on 05/02/2003 1:08:01 PM PDT by NittanyLion

Which part?

As long as it's not the $2000 limit it doesn't matter to the good guys, however I'm sure the DEMONCRATS are delighted, they really hated this law.

79 posted on 05/02/2003 1:08:25 PM PDT by Mister Baredog ((They wanted to kill 50,000 of us on 9/11, we will never forget!))

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I wonder if this hurts Kerry's campaign by reducing the advantage he has from being independently wealthy.

80 posted on 05/02/2003 1:08:34 PM PDT by aristeides

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794