McCain-Feingold Will Wreck Politics-Campaign finance reform has failed.

Wall St Journal ^ | 8-22-03 | KENNETH W. STARR

[SJackson]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rose for its recess only a few weeks ago -- but the justices are probably already back in study hall. With no retirements embroiling the country in a nasty debate, the most stable Court in history will return to town next month and hold an extraordinary four hours of oral argument in a single case -- the challenge by Sen. Mitch McConnell and others to the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, better known as McCain-Feingold.

[Lazamataz]

Judge Starr is a really prodigious intellect.

It's a pity he purposefully 'threw' the impeachment case.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Thank you for giving us Sandra Day O' Commie and for burying the crimes of the Clinton administration for eternity. Now shut up and go away, Mr. Starr.

[goldstategop]

The McInsane-Feingevelt Constitutionally Forcible Rape scheme has failed. Money still gets into politcs. And all the law does is restrict legitimate freedom of speech. Its completely unconstitutional of course. But that didn't deter a majority of our Congressmen and Senators, egged on by the media, from violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Ironically, the Democrats who were the biggest supporters of this stupid idea are now trying to get around it for it prevents them from raising adequate funds. Talk about the law of unintended consequences coming back to bite liberals on their behinds.

[IncPen]

��5{��������e minors provision: Ironically, Sens. McCain and Feingold, who intervened in the lawsuit specifically to defend the constitutionality of their law, have abandoned their defense of that provision in the Supreme Court -- thereby leaving the dirty work to the solicitor general, who is duty bound to defend any statute, no matter how unwise, that Congress sees fit to pass

Would that the Supreme Court could extract something from McCain and Feingold (their teeth?) for this excreble monstrosity.

[steve50]

We never should have had this law enacted. We were promised a veto.

[gaspar]

George Bush does not know what the word "veto" means.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...And all the law does is restrict legitimate freedom of speech...

Therefore, I ask, how has it failed?
This was it's intention.

[GunsareOK]

Like his father, he'll find out what one term means.

[rellimpank]

"Congress shall make no law"----seems plain enough that even a Supreme Court justice should be able to understand--

[Coop]

The McInsane-Feingevelt Constitutionally Forcible Rape scheme has failed.

Oh, I don't know. I'm kind of enjoying the GOP's 4:1 fundraising ratio over the Dems (when factoring in debt). LOL!!

[longtermmemmory]

under this law the Democrats have lost more money than the republicans. This reform law has been to republican advantage, there never was a reason to veto it.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

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

[gaspar]

Of course there was reason to veto the bill. It was unconstitutional. We elect our Presidents to make tough decisions, not pass them on to an unelected and undependable Supreme Court.

[longtermmemmory]

you are preaching to the choir. His analysis was flawed but I see the time limits on speech thrown out and the dollar limitations on soft money standing.

No matter which side you fall on this issue, it is a mess.

[steve50]

This reform law has been to republican advantage, there never was a reason to veto it.

Laws are not justified by which party they empower. Bush said this law was unconstitutional, a large majority of republicans agreed with him. He campaigned on a promise to veto it, he lied.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

under this law the Democrats have lost more money than the republicans. This reform law has been to republican advantage, there never was a reason to veto it.

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

There are two clauses of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion; there is not only a "free exercise" clause but a an "Establishment" clause. The courts have indeed evinced an unfortunate tendency to read the "Establishment" clause expansively as to threaten to extinguish the "free exercise" clause. By the internal logic of the Constitution, "freedom of speech, and of the press" likewise implies freedom from an Establishment as well as freedom from censorship, even if the framers did not trouble to make the two aspects of freedom explicit.

But although we-the-people are vigilant that the goverrnment shall not act in judgement upon the press by censoring the press, we are almost entirely oblivious to the opposite abuse, government Establishment. There are officially objective bodies empanneled by the American legal system--they're called juries, and no other body is constitutionally authorized to the claim of "truth" with government sanction. Yet all "campaign finance reform" legislation essentially Establishes the commercial press by banning "political speech" by we-the-people within a certain time before an election while excuding establishment journalism from the definition of political speech.

The same is in fact true the year around, when it comes to broadcasting; the selection of the few to be allowed to speak is accomplished at the expense of the equality of we-the-people who do not have government license to speak.

Although admittedly the framers hoped to avoid political parties ("faction"), the logic of the Constitution has driven American politics into an essentially stable "2-major-party, multiple-minor-party" configuration. The prototypes of the modern American political parties were newspapers--essentially, house organs for the Jefferson/Hamilton factions.

The propaganda "PR" of the modern pseudo-objective liberal newspaper claims that those house organs were somehow scandalous, but that point completely escaped the notice of the founders who had no illusion that newspapers were, should be, or even could be "objective." "Freedom of the press" implies judgement of the truth/significance of journalism (and indeed of all printed matter) by we-the-people individually and not by the government.

Everyone who voted for McCain-Feingold, and the president who signed it, is guilty of malfeasance because the "law" so patently intends what the First Amendment forbids.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate