Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

[Howlin]

Why don't you start an impeachment petition?

[Protagoras]

Odd, though, how they leave out the vemonous spew for all those in the house and Senate.

I hereby excoriate anyone who had anything to do with this evil. As I have done multiple times in the past. And the Democrats are a given as evil. Bush is held up as the defender of the constitution and conservatism.

You'd think Bush was responsible for the Black plague, too!

Nope, but for this,,he is guilty as hell. If Clinton had done what Bush did on this bill, he would have been called a traitor and an impeachment called for by the Bush idolators. This is pathetic. It's hypocricy taken to an art form.

[NittanyLion]

I said I didn't agree with the bill or his signing

I beg to differ. You held consistently from the start that his signing it was a good idea, because the House and Senate would override the veto and waste a lot of time (don't know where you got that idea, neither had the 2/3 vote necessary).

Sorry. Would you like for me to drive to D.C., lay down on the Mall and let people spit on me because I didn't say I hated Bush for what he did? What will satisfy you? If I said he was an [expletive deleted], would that satisfy you? If I said he shouldn't have ever been elected, would that satisfy you? If I said he was just like his daddy, would that satisfy you? If I said he was the worst president we ever had, would that satisfy you?

That's a bit over the top, don't you think? And watch your language - this is a family-friendly forum.

[Sir_Ed]

"If both branches of congress, the president and the courts believe the bill is constitutional under our current form og government, isn't that the definition of consitutional ?"

So Dred Scott WAS in fact, Constitutionally speaking, a slave??

Ed

[hchutch]

How did we let them?

We never really encouraged those who might have had talent in those fields to pursue them. Nor did we ever really stop and think that it would be a good idea to get our own stuff out there earlier.

The disparity is obvious. Look at the top ten newspapers in terms of circulation. Where do they fall on the political spectrum? Looking at Fox News, it is now very clear that it is possible to get alternative media out there and up and running within ten years.

How hard would it be for Fox to get a 30-minute evening broadcast up and running? Start to take them on that turf. Not only will they lose audience share, they will HAVE to shift a little to stop the bleeding.

[B Knotts]

I think there's a lesson to be learned here about "strategery." It is "strategery" that has ultimately led to this situation. Let us recall some of it:

• 1981 - President Reagan, to uphold a campaign promise designed to mute criticism of him as too conservative, appoints Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court.
• 1990 - President George H. W. Bush, hoping to avoid a confirmation fight in the Senate, appoints "stealth" candidate David Souter to the Supreme Court.
• 2002 - President George W. Bush, trying to avoid creating a campaign issue that might work against him, signs McCain-Feingold, relying on SCOTUS to overturn.

See how "strategery," although it can take many years, always comes back to bite you in the hind quarters?

[concerned about politics]

So you think CFR is constitutional?

According to the Constitution, yes. It's up to the house and Senate, along with the president, to make laws. It's up to the courts to uphold them. That's what the Constitution says, does it not?
Those who voted for it were elected to represent the people. That's you, too. So, the people actually chose this by their own free will.
We were "represented" by those who signed it.

[Miss Marple]

You are assuming that all Congressmen and Senators would have voted the same way when the bill was returned for an override. McCain was gearing up for a huge PR push, and I think that an override was a distinct possibility.

As I said, I didn't agree, but I understood the reasoning. So sue me. The law is constitutional because the Supreme Court says it is, regardless of our opinions.

I did not expect this to be upheld. Neither did the President. Neither did Congressman Billybob, nor Mitch McConnell.

So, we can all whine and froth at the mouth, or we can start figuring out ways to get our message out and also figure out ways to get this law reversed.

Griping doesn't accomplish anything.

[Protagoras]

If I said he was an asshole, would that satisfy you?

You might as well say it, he is saying it about people like you. As in "Can you believe these A__holes really support me?"

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

I guess I really do now live in Amerika (spelled correctly). :(((((

[NittanyLion]

Is abortion okay?

[justshutupandtakeit]

No more than with non-incumbents.

[NYC Republican]

I guess I really do now live in Amerika (spelled correctly). :(((((

Yet another "the sky is falling" poster joins this thread. Nice...

[JustAnAmerican]

"Will all the members of the house and Senate that signed the bill be impeached?

Since most of the Idiots that voted for CFR were Dims(198 in the house alone), I would not have a problem with that.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

I actually thought that Bush would veto this, but I was wrong. Although I don't agree, I do understand why he didn't (Daschle was running the Senate and threatening to hold up all legislation).

School bully: "Gimmie your lunch money!"

Little Johnny: "No!!! I can't!!! If I give you my lunch money then I won't be able to eat my lunch. WAH!!!"

School bully "Gimmie your lunch money or I'll beat you to a pulp!"

Little Johnny:"NO!!!! WAH!!!!!WAH!!!!"

School Bully: "Gimmie your lunch money or I'll beat you to a pulp today, tomorrow, and for the rest of the school year!"

Little Johnny:"OK!OK! Now leave me alone! Leave me alone!"

A president who will risk life and limb going to Iraq on thanksgiving, but didn't standup to the short and stubby obstructionist bully from South Dakota. I'm beginning to wonder about the motive and intent of whoever is calling the shots in the WH.

[Beck_isright]

"They are not restricted by this law why would they "go off the air.""

Because a liberal court will interpret the political commentary they make for profit as political speech which is unauthorized according to this law (as the 9th would interpret it).

"Are you implying these are paid shills?"

Not at all. The 9th Circuit will do that on their own.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Handbills are not affected by the CFR.

[Mo1]

Not sure what you mean by "taking." If you mean "accepting donations," then my answer is yes.

Ok .. what's the difference from taking and accepting our tax dollars??

BTW .. any chance you are a lawyer?

I'm opposed to public financing of campaigns. That's just welfare for politicians.

If you are against it .. how is it that above you said you are for "accepting" it??

If I was writing the Campaign Finance laws from scratch, I'd allow unlimited contributions and spending, with full and immediate disclosure of donors. I'd prohibit all foreign money.

So then I guess you don't have a problem with George Soros donating 15 million to get Bush out of office?

I'd also get rid of the matching funds altogether, and remove that option from your tax forms.

I could be wrong .. but when were people forced to take the funds or mark the option on their tax return?

If I recall it's an option ... a choice

[Howlin]

You held consistently from the start that his signing it was a good idea, because the House and Senate would override the veto and waste a lot of time (don't know where you got that idea, neither had the 2/3 vote necessary).

We've been over this on this very thread; I never said it was a GOOD IDEA; I discussed the reason why he did it. I can only guess at why you continue to put interpretations on my words that aren't there.

And I never said that the House and Senate would override the veto and waste a lot of time BECAUSE I DIDN"T KNOW THAT. Ask anybody on here; I'm the worst person with numbers on this forum.

I said that the SC would rule parts of it unconstititutional. I was wrong. So were a lot of other people.

Except you, of course.

[Who is John Galt?]

None of these are unconstitutional; Congress under the Constitution was given the power to regulate elections. This is what this law does.

Congress was not granted power to pass even a single law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. That is what this law does - and that is unconstitutional.

Throwing in a red herring about slavery doesn't change that.

"Red herring?" You suggest that Congress can ignore the 1st Amendment while busy 'regulating elections' - why can't Congress ignore the 13th Amendment during the same process? (I'm sure your response will be as 'well-reasoned' as the rest of your posts... ;>)

Did you think Congress could pass a law stating that all voters must have a slave to carry them to the polling place?

What is to stop them, if your 'interpretation' of the Constitution is correct? Absolutely nothing.

(Of course, your 'interpretation' is about as lunatic as they come... ;>)

And I know of nothing you have posted which would lead me to believe freedom of speech is NOT absolute. Perhaps you can correct that misimpression?

Certainly. Let's reread the 1st Amendment:

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

Apparently you believe that Congress is the only legislative body in these United States. In fact, any regulation of the freedom of speech is a matter for the State legislatures, not Congress.

;>)