Ruling exposes [campaign finance] law's flaws

USA Today ^ | 5/5/03 | William Hamilton

[rhema]

The eye-glazing ruling Friday that overturned key parts of a major campaign-finance law tells us something is inherently wrong with a federal law that would give incumbents a virtually unbeatable advantage, would reduce voter turnout, would diminish the role of political parties whose purposes are clearly stated and favor special-interest groups whose real purposes are often hidden

[CedarDave]

I don't see the words "First Amendment" or "free speech" mentioned anywhere in the article. Forget about the murky arguments about who can do what with whose money, and emphasize instead what the law does to the right of individuals to speak in favor or in opposition to candidates anytime during a political campaign. Why not focus on that chilling suppression of our fundamental right, Professor??

[RAT Patrol]

BTTT!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[ellery]

bttt

[metalurgist]

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW

Another phrase our ruling elite doesn't understand.

[DaveCooper]

Look at the end of the first paragraph...

even as it tramples our fundamental right to free political expression.

[jrushing]

05/10/2002 Proponents have called the legislation a first step at eliminating the influence and access of big-money donors.

05/05/2003 Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court will sustain the promising start made Friday by a federal appeals court in reforming the McCain-Feingold law's so-called reforms.

Less than a year & already the courts think reform stinks.

I thought it stank from the beginning.

[Smedley]

Didn't the provisions outlawing "attack ads" in the final weeks of an election survive? This is the most appalling provision to me.

[WhaChuLookinAt]

But such Utopian schemes often have unintended consequences

Not sure about that "unintended" part...