Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Finance Rules

Associated Press ^ | June 16, 2003 | Anne Gearan

[SUSSA]

Bush was a jackass for signing this law,. . .

This is the biggest understatement since Noah said, “It looks like rain.”

[RAT Patrol]

I'm not so sure, either. One thing I've noticed is a campaign loss is not always a total loss and vice versa. The people supposedly on your side will melt like butter on a hot pan to opposition if they think they can "retain" power by giving in. It's like legislating while holding your breath. On the other hand, principles show and fighting is bolder when you're the party on the outs. A Republican would likely never have achieved welfare reform, and a Democrat might never have accomplished CFR or the homosexual agenda garbage our guys are now frozen before. I'm not sure why this is true, but think about it. It is true.

[B Knotts]

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.

It doesn't?!?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Looks like we currently have seven idiots on the bench who think the Constitution is "living."

[TLBSHOW]

Would a, I told you so, count?

[RAT Patrol]

If I can't afford to speak, what good is it? Try regulating the press a tad -- even their money -- and see what happens. OUTRAGE! That's what. Their little mention in the 1st is an adsolute you see. Religon - bah! Speech - negotiable! Press - the be all end all. Conservative groups need to agressively buy their own media outlets and newspapers. It's the only thing ultra-protected.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Is it me or do these two seem inseparable on decisions?

[PhiKapMom]

I agree with -- it is the advertising before the election I believe they are going to strike down -- wasn't there a severabililty clause put into it.

Actually except for the advertising I don't have a problem since it raised the limit to $2000 which is helping us more than the RATs.

[Dane]

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

JMO, but there are no quotation marks in that quote.

From previous experience of reading the AP, it could be editroializing the news by the reporter.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Of course this ruling holding up a 32 year old law was written by Souter, so anything is possible, but I don't think that even Souter would use such inflammatory language like "corrosive effects of corporate money in politics".

These days I don't give the benefit of the doubt to the liberal media.

I could be wrong, but the lack of quotation marks makes it suspect to me.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks for posting that -- heard the same thing!

People need to relax until the ruling comes down!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

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

[kayak]

I would love to hear your take on this and what, if any, indication it might give as to how SCOTUS might rule on CFR.

[Pukin Dog]

Read carefully:

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.

That is not a powerful statement at all, just a statement of fact. It only affirms that Congress is within it's rights to legally limit free speech under constititional considerations, as always. There are plenty of legal limitations to free speech, such as the "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" and so on. This statement means nothing, as it only parrots what is already known. The courts are only acknowledging the current law.

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.

Again, this statement only backs the premise that certain restrictions on campaign contributions are legal. Neither this, or the other statement is relevant with respect to issue-advocacy groups, because it does not address the primary restriction in McCain-Feingold regarding limiting speech within a certain time frame before an election. There is no way to constitutionally defend a suggestion that previously legal speech, can be made illegal by it's proximity to an election. No way can that be defended at all. Legal speech now, is legal speech always. Restricions can only be made on WHAT can be said, not on WHEN you can say it.

I believe that the courts have only made that distinction clear, so that they have an easy explanation, when McCain-Feingold is struck down.

[AntiGuv]

The relevant section of the 1971 Campaign Act - 2 U.S.C. § 441b - "prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections." By finding that the statute similarly applies to nonprofit political advocacy groups, the Court is essentially placing them on the same 'playing field' as corporations & labor unions. As such, the AP representation is probably quite accurate considering this ruling.

That being said, it'll be another day or so before I can read over the actual ruling at FindLaw or some other source, so I can't be 100% positive.

[Pukin Dog]

Wrong again.

Bush was brilliant for signing this law. It is now off the table as a political issue, especially when Bush and Republicans will almost always raise more money then Democrats do.

The courts are the proper place to decide the issue, so that it can go away forever. Bush prevented more and more draconian versions of this bill from going forward under Democrat administrations in the future, with potential left leaning courts supporting them. You cannot guarantee a conservative court forever, so the time is now to remove the issue from further consideration, before some leftist judges can actually agree to these limitations regardless of their attacks on the constitution.

[steveegg]

The general consensus appears confident that the Supreme Court will strike down McCain-Feingold; I'm not so sure..

Houston, we've had a problem. We've had a main B bus undervolt.

[Dane]

As such, the AP representation is probably quite accurate considering this ruling.

Huh, here is the original AP quote,

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

And here is the quote that you found on FindLaw,

The relevant section of the 1971 Campaign Act - 2 U.S.C. § 441b - "prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections."

Now there is one word missing from the AP quote but is found within the quote you looked up on FindLaw,

the word is "union"

[AntiGuv]

See my post #33 and place this ruling within the context of McCain-Feingold.

The Supreme Court has essentially ruled that nonprofit, independent political advocacy groups may be regarded in the same manner as corporations and labor unions. The primary restriction - or more accurately, the primary objective - of McCain-Feingold, insofar as issue advocacy is concerned, involves the limitation of their expenditures towards influencing federal elections. The key point of dispute is whether money=speech. The Court has essentially stated that money does not equal free speech within this context.

If the Court is to maintain consistence in its jursiprudence (whatever that's worth) then it would near certainly pass a judgment that limits the expenditures of issue advocacy groups by some manner or another. Whether that's precisely the solution arrived at by McCain-Feingold, or some other solution short of the full breadth of the Campaign Finance Act, remains yet to be seen...

[AntiGuv]

That's all fine & good, but it's inconsequential to the matter at hand. Whether Souter's ruling and/or media reports note the limitations on labor unions, or only those on corporations, is meaningless, because under the law they are regarded as identical.

[Lazamataz]

Bush was brilliant for signing this law.

Lenin was brilliant for overthrowing the Tzars.

[steveegg]

I'm digesting the actual ruling (PDF version here now. I'll know whether to be at all relieved soon (I hope).