Posted on 06/16/2003 8:29:54 AM PDT by AntiGuv
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the government can ban campaign contributions from advocacy groups, a warm-up decision to the showdown over the broader new campaign finance law.
Justices rejected a constitutional challenge to the 32-year-old federal donation ban, which applies to groups with a point of view on issues such as gun rights and abortion.
The case, involving a North Carolina anti-abortion organization, was a prelude to the court's handling of the 2002 campaign finance law.
By a vote of 7-2, the court said the right to free speech does not trump Congress' goal of limiting the corrosive effects of corporate money in politics.
Advocacy organizations maintain that their members should be allowed to pool their money and use it to elect candidates who support their issues.
The government maintained that the groups could be used to circumvent individual campaign donation limits, with little public disclosure about the source of the money.
"Any attack on the federal prohibition of direct corporate political contributions goes against the current of a century of congressional efforts," Justice David Souter wrote for the majority.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with Souter. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy agreed with the outcome.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The donation ban is not directly related to the court's review of the new campaign finance law, commonly known as McCain-Feingold for its congressional sponsors - Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., but the ruling will be closely watched for clues to what the justices might do.
The court has scheduled a special session in September, a month ahead of the start of its regular term, to consider the law that bans corporate, union and unlimited contributions - known as soft money - to national party committees.
The new law also bars a range of interest groups, including those financed with corporate or union money and those that do not disclose their donors, from airing ads mentioning federal candidates in their districts the month before a primary and two months before a general election.
When Congress rewrote the campaign finance rules, it did not change the 1971 law that makes it unlawful for any type of corporation to give money to a federal candidate or political party.
Currently only individuals, political parties,political action committees and other campaigns can contribute to federal candidates and national party committees. The court's ruling Monday maintains that status quo and continues a trend in which the high court has been willing to uphold limits on contributions.
In 2001, the court ruled that political parties could not spend unlimited amounts of money if they coordinated their efforts with a candidate. And in 2000, the court voted to back Missouri's contribution limits to state campaigns.
Elizabeth Garrett, a law professor at the University of Southern California, said the case is important because issue-oriented nonprofits have become increasingly important in campaigns.
She said it also means that provisions in the new campaign finance act that require nonprofit corporations, as well as for-profit corporations and labor unions, to use separate funds to pay for political advertisements are more likely to survive the court's review.
"The decision is a green light for other laws regulating these organizations and their involvement in campaigns, such as aggressive disclosure laws," said Garrett.
The case is Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, 02-403.
Ask yourself how difficult is has been for Conservatives to overturn Row V. Wade; or other landmark decisions.
I don't think it is entirely clear that the purpose of the court was to interpret laws however I think even in the case of say exxon it is clear. The first amendment makes no exception for money that is funneled through a corporation. If the law is designed to abridge speech by a group or individual it is by definition unconstitutional otherwise the exception would have been made as it was in regards to other constitutional provisions ie "In times of rebellion".
You are again using the "I said so" form of support for your arguments. If you want to hang Bush with his own words, shouldn't you be requird to give him the benefit of the doubt absent anything else ?
I think interpretation of laws has to be literalist while the words of politicians clearly can be read into. If you want to be literalist however he did state he had serious questions about the bill. Given that his job is to protect the constitution those questions alone should have been enough to veto it.
I realize I am providing a paraphrase of his comment but do you honestly come to a different conclusion of his meaning than I do?
In politics, there is -- by definition -- no such thing as a fair fight. HOWEVER, there is such a thing as ruling justly.
A politician that hews to the Consitution and BoR, rules justly. A politician that abrogates the Constitution and BoR, rules unjustly and sets us on the road to tyranny.
I don't care about a fair fighter. I care about making sure I do not help elect a would-be tyrant.
If you want to call that the 'ends justifying the means' so be it. Democrats must be defeated. Bush does a good job of that, so he is my man.
That really goes to the heart of the problem.
As a political 'group of folks' we would have to be strictly protected by assembly and free-speech rights.
Yet groups are incorporating as non-profits because it isn't practical (I assume: ie OSHA, liability, taxes...) to just be 'a group of folks'.
So, Catch 22, the groups rights aren't stricly protected.
That isn't the question I asked. I asked how you can arrrive at the conclusion that the bill of rights was meant to be extended to an imaginary being, a corporation. They did exist at the time.
If the bill of rights are not individual rights but are considered corporate rights then the argument that the second amendment only applies to "people" in the plural is the natural result of applying your logic and we have no individual right to own a gun.
There is a distinction between corporations which are imaginary beings created by state charter and which have special protections under the law including unlimited lives and real live human beings like you and I.
It is a leap on your part to conclude that these rights are supposed to be extended to corporations in the same manner as individuals. This SC has likewise said that corporations have been treated differently since the early 1900's so that this is not a new result for the SC.
I'm not particularly married to one view or the other on this case except as an example to demonstrate to you that their are issues that cannot be resolved by following the explict words and they do need to be applied to real life examples.
In doing so, making your personal judgement that Bush signed an unconstitutional bill, if upheld by the courts to be constitutional requires you to claim superior wisdom over the majority court.At the very least, to be consistant, you should call for the impeachment of the judges that voted on yes on this case. And you should acknowledge that good men might honestly disagree with you.
Regarding corporations. They are nothing more than a collection of individuals pooling their money for a common purpose. If I give my money to a corporation to forward my political agenda and the corporation is then restricted in its ability to do so you have abridged my ability to spread my message by cutting off an outlet for me to do so.
Or alternatively the first amendment just says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech it does not say "only for people". Since it doesn't explicitly exclude corporations they must also be included unless you believe in a living breathing document where "only people" is implied.
Interesting argument but I don't think it applies. If I say that "People have two arms" It does not mean that 280 million people share the same two limbs.
While Bush is not someone I would call evil, I sure would call him someone who compromises too much of the Constitution away. If CFR does get a SCOTUS approval, as it stands, the 1st Amendment will be quite seriously damaged, and Bush would have been instrumental in causing that damage. Many people who voted for Bush because they expected a respect for the Constitution and BoR out of the man, will likely sit on their hands in the next few election cycles -- namely, 2004 and 2006.
If you believe that Bush is an enemy of the Constitution, would you rather have Democrats with the power to just end it now?
Honestly, I hold out no hope for either party; never did. I just want lower taxes, and less regulation. I've got no children, and I'll be long gone before official socialism returns.
They are more than that. Under state charters they have special protections and their shareholders have limited liability.
If I give my money to a corporation to forward my political agenda and the corporation is then restricted in its ability to do so you have abridged my ability to spread my message by cutting off an outlet for me to do so.
I believe one of the arguments regarding this is that you have no control over what happens with your money once you turn it over. They are free to spend it as they see fit for whatever cause they see fit. Or alternatively the first amendment just says congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech it does not say "only for people". Since it doesn't explicitly exclude corporations they must also be included unless you believe in a living breathing document where "only people" is implied.
The constitution doesn't provide that corporations are protected from having any limitations imposed on them. Just as they are creations of government, they can be destroyed by government or government can impose on them conditions in order to exist. Such laws are imposed on all corporations since the early 1900's that have imposed restrictions on their spending. This ruling merely clarifies that included in the list of corporations are nonprofits. Why would one corporation have superior rights than another ?
Fast.
Enough shock might shock the populace into action.
Government goals outweigh individual rights, according to the highest court, Congress, and virtually every bureau and agency you can think of. Is this still America?
Broad prophylactic caps on campaign contributions are unconsitional because "they are not narrowly tailored to meet any relevant compelling state interest,"
-in other words:-
Who gave you {congress} the right to write these laws?
Gotta luv those metafores!
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.