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.

[July 4th]

The decision actually benefits the GOP if the two parties go head to head. We're much better at raising hard money, which hasn't been banned. It's only limited to the $2,000 individual contribution limits.

[Mo1]

This whole development is a hell of a good argument for (and I'm not saying I won't) not re-electing Bush! This would never have come to the Supremes if he hadn't signed the damned thing in the first place!

For the record, I'm not happy with this ruling

But if you think for one minute that the Dems wouldn't have signed this or one worse then this .. Then you are just fooling yourself

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nothing slender about it.

It says what it means and if the "constitutional scholars" around here ignore it then their claim of supporting the constitution is as hollow and shallow as their legal thinking.

This ruling does not stop you from expressing your opinion or exercising your free speech in any way no more than restrictions on the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Start your own newsletter, write a tv script, play, novel, short story, publish articles on politics if you can't play by the new rules. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Rather than hysterical reactions we should look at the RATS response. This won't even slow the lying juggernaut down.

[ArneFufkin]

Gee, everybody is still speaking freely right now.

When does that get cut off?

[Howlin]

Don't try to bring ANY kind of reason into this feeding frenzy.

[AppyPappy]

That's a joke. The Democrats don't have to obey campaign finance laws. Only the Republicans do.

[goodnesswins]

No....the founders did a lot of behind the back bribing, arm twisting, cajoling, etc to get OTHERS to bad mouth the opponent with their 18th century versions of "media".....Read the JOHN ADAMS Biography

[hellinahandcart]

Well, it was a nice country, while it lasted.

I'm not kidding.

There's no one to appeal this to, and they will probably strike down any legislation to counter this as "unconstitutional".

Blackmail, brainwashing, or conversion to treason. pick one, two, or all three, but these are the only explanations for the actions of Sandra Day O'Connor.

THey're going to strike down the 2nd next, and then the election in 2004 will be irrelevant.

[Hank Rearden]

I believe Bush signed this after saying the Supremes would strike it down.

So Bush Jr. signed a law he believed to be unconstitutional? You're saying he's just a political whore?

I'm shocked.

[Mo1]

Now we are all in a world of shit.

It's not good .. but it's also not the end of the world

We can sit around and moan about this ruling or we can figure out a way to get around it

Because you can bet the Dems are already doing so

[John Robertson]

"That's a joke. The Democrats don't have to obey campaign finance laws. Only the Republicans do."

You're right. And the Dems have the ball to make big tactical decisions: So what if our planned campaign gambit is illegal...by the time it gets sorted out, we'll already be in office for a year or more--small price for a big item.

[John Jorsett]

Go back to Mars.

Appropriate response from someone with your screen name. How much are you willing to take? Will you accept anything at all as long as it's from someone with an R by his name?

[Protagoras]

You better believe that 2004 is OUR last chance to stop this!

Umm, how you going to do that?

[epluribus_2]

CNN has: The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.

VERY BAD NEWS. Unfreaking believable.

CNN did reassure viewers that the Cable News Network itself would be free to present it's views and educate voters about Republicans before elections and would not be affected by the ruling...

[Miss Marple]

Wow, this thread is filling up fast! Shame about the political ads, but I expected the rest to be upheld. Soft money only helps the dems, so the money thing isin't any big deal. And if MoveOn can't spend their money on ads, their primary threat is neutralized.

But of course, we are doomed, doomed, dooomed.....

[Labyrinthos]

You're preaching to people who haven't even read the 300 page decision and probably haven't even read the law itself.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

O'Conner has gone senile.

[Judith Anne]

Hold it! Hold it!

Now listen: what exactly was lost by this ruling? Let's look at it rationally. Do we even KNOW anything yet, or are we reacting to liberal AP spin of the ruling?

IF we lost anything, and that's a big if, did the Dems also lose whatever it was?

Will this prevent the NRA from buying a channel?

I'm a little sick of saturated airwaves before elections on the alpha nets--isn't anyone else? Do such ads actually accomplish anything? We all like to gag by the time the election comes, anyway. There are a lot more ways to get the message out than TV ads anyway, attack ads or otherwise. The republicans have a big ol' wad of money--I'm sure it can be spent wisely.

What is with all these otherwise good posters who are suddenly hysterical?

Can't we all calm down and find out what the decision actually says?

[ArneFufkin]

A very, VERY sad day for this country.

You can't say that anyomore. Free Speech is now prohibited.

Rintense, I admire you greatly. Therefore, I really ask that you articulate EXACTLY how you are so injured right now.

Seriously. How has your life just changed?

[Who is John Galt?]

Amendment I

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

What part of "Congress shall make no law" do you fail to understand? Or have you convinced yourself that pre-election political ads do not qualify as "freedom of speech, or of the press?"

;>)