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.

[tpaine]

Congressman Billybob:

It is up to every state to determine its own criminal law.

[Except for guns] -- But don't ALL criminal laws have to comply with our BORs individual protections?

So if North Carolina, New York, and Nevada reach different decisions on the subject, that is permitted by the US Constitution.

That's simply not true according to the plain words of the 14th, is it?

I know that answer will displease some people, perhaps even both of you. But I always start any discussion of political basics with the plain language -- or lack of language -- of the Constitution on that subject. John / Billybob 1,605

The USSC let stand a peculiar 'criminal law' about assault weapons in CA last week, Billy. -- Do you support CA's 'right' to prohibit such weapons?

The issue of gun ownership is in a different category than general criminal law. The later was left to the states by the Constitution. The former, however, has a specific Amendment, the 2nd, put in the Bill of Rights to protect it.

The 14th is specific on its protections of our rights to life, liberty, and property, billy. Can states ignore it when they write criminal law?

[Technogeeb]

I am willing to put my life, liberty and sacred honor (to use an old but good phrase) on the line for the Constitution, even if five Justices of the Supreme Court are willing to wipe their feet on it. Anyone who agrees with me is welcome to make the same commitment.

Don't misunderstand; I'm happy to sign on (just let me know when and where). But considering the trend lately, I wouldn't count on that jury trial if I were you...

[El Gato]

Why do they think that the NRA cannot run an ad for a specific candidate but the anti-NRA can run an ad for a specific candidate?

What am I missing here?

That a very few really wealthy men, like George Soros can run such ads as individuals, but groups like the NRA, or the much smaller but harder hitting, JPFO or GOA, cannot. Also the so called newsmen, especially on TV, will be able to distort the issue to bash the good guys (He wants criminals to have guns!) While the friends of the good guy, can't respond. The same applies regardless of the issue. One "entertainer" (BS for example) can do it one market, while another does it in a different market. We don't have that many rich guys on our side in the arms rights arena, no matter wether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans. Still the biggest threat, on most all conservative issues, and against Republican cannidates for the most part, will be the major national media, who will be much freer to distort things, and to play "gotcha", than they now are.

While this law and ruling only affects federal elections and candidates, you can bet that now that the Supreme Court has said it's OK, you can expect state legislatures to pass similar laws, where they haven't already that is.

[capitan_refugio]

WiJG? - It sounds to me like the USSC is saying that television and radio advertising is not considered "speech" or "press" any longer. The ruling does not seem to apply to magazines, or newspapers, or flyers that you hang on your neighbors front door knobs.

I'll have to read this. I understand this was a 5-4 vote. All the more reason to elect officials who will nominate constructionist judges, and a Senate that will confirm appropriate nominees.

[El Gato]

with the exception of McCain and a few other idiots, voted AGAINST this law and ALL the democrats voted FOR it. So the only bums who should be thrown out is the dems. If you punish the republicans who stood up for us, why would you ever expect them to stand up for us again?

The problem is, if you were to run an ad, that is a group of "y'all", opposing each Democrat plus McCain and a few other idiots, on that basis, and within the proscribed time frames, you'd be in violation of the law.

[capitan_refugio]

Intent! Intent! Intent!

[El Gato]

How is this restriction any different than those preventing electioneering within 100 yards of the polling places? They are violations of an absolute freedom of speech as well.

Those are place and manor restrictions, this is a content based restriction. Up until today, those have always been been understood to be unconsitutional, as they are. The purpose of the 100 yard, or whatever, no electioneering zones was not and is not to prevent people from electioneering, it was to make the process of a going in and casting your vote free from intimidation by political bullyboys, a quite common occurance in the past. In other words, it was to protect your right to vote free from interferance.

[capitan_refugio]

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Lincoln

[El Gato]

I realize it is difficult to believe but the Sheeple appear to be waking up and the day of RATmedia control is ending

Why do you think the RATmedia was so in favor of CFR? In proportion to their numbers, more Democrats voted for it than Republicans, why do you think they did that? Did either of those groups think it would decrease their power and influence. Not a chance.

[El Gato]

The concerns over shutting down FR, DU or any other internet site based on this law are misplaced. The law specifically exempts the internet and written communications. However, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that political speach may be suppressed based on it's content, you can expect, probably sooner rather than later, a new law that would simlarly restrict speech on the internet. Or maybe just some sort of civil suit so the Courts can make the law, they like doing that. As a matter of Constitutional law, there is no distinction, that I can see anyway. FR, and presumably DU, although who knows maybe Soros pays for that, is nothing more than a group of individuals who pay for the site, well some of of us do, which JimRob, et.al. run.

[MEG33]

You can pool your money and take out an ad..but not if you are incorporated,This was aimed at corporations.

[Congressman Billybob]

The test of any man or woman is: what are the issues for which you are willing to sacrifice, seriously. For me, the welfare of the Constitution warrants that.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

That's why I said in a refinement of my in-your-face ad that I will ask the sponsoring group, with me as point man and target for enforcement, that the group SHOULD incorporate. That way it is clear that I/they are in violation of this terrible law, and terrible decision.

Hence the last line of the ad, "Come and get is." They will come for me, first. And then the fun will begin.

John / Billybob

[El Gato]

We are a website not a cable or satellite medium.

True, but more and more people are getting their internet service via cable modem. So, who wants to bet that the 9th Cirucus won't rule that makes it a "broadcast" over cable (or satellite). After all where does the internet end, at your ISP or at your computer? From a technical standpoint such distinctions may not make sense, since your computer has it's own numerical URL, so it really is a part of the internet. The fact that dial-up modems cause you to have different one every time you log on is beside the point. But that's technically, legally, meaning whatever a court will agree to, who knows? But I suspect we'll find out.

[El Gato]

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 ?

Practically speaking yes, but in reality no. The Constitution says what it says, and means what it meant when passed, or when amended as applicable. The Constitution alone is the standard, not what some politicians or political appointees say about it. It's not as if it is some big theoretical exposition, written in impenetrable legalese. It's not, it's written in clear standard(for the late 18th century) English. Very little of it is at all ambiguous. Congress shall make no law.. and right of the people shall not be infringed, seem awfully clear to me, but apparently not to the Federal courts, nor the Congress, nor the President. All of whom took oaths to support and defend it.

[El Gato]

they know no one is going to watch the NRA channel to see this week's editorial,

Ketchup Boy is apparently worried abou that, so he's sent a letter to the Federal Election Commision asking them to block the NRA channel from every coming to be.

[El Gato]

Why do you all want to conviently forget the two justices Clinton appointed who make up 2/5th's of the current liberal majority on SCOTUS.

Why do you want to forget that the majority of that liberal majority, 3/5ths or 605 were Republican appointees? Personally I don't care who appointed them, they violated their oaths, as did the President who signed the law, and every Congressman and Senator who voted for it. Every one.

[Looking for Diogenes]

t's not, it's written in clear standard(for the late 18th century) English. Very little of it is at all ambiguous. Congress shall make no law.. and right of the people shall not be infringed, seem awfully clear to me, but apparently not to the Federal courts, nor the Congress, nor the President.

1st Amendment: 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.

As I understand it, the CFR does not limit any person's right to speak, nor does it infringe on the freedom of the press, in the plain 18th Century meaning of those words.

It does limit campaign contribution and television and radio broadcast advertisements. I don't see anything in the clear, standard words of 1st amendment about those.

[El Gato]

From: Bill Summary and Status on thomas.loc.gov

House
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 240 - 189 (Roll no. 34).

Senate
Cloture on the measure invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 32. Record Vote Number: 53.
Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 40. Record Vote Number: 54.

55.94% in House (not veto proof) 605 in Senate (barely veto proof, if no one changed their vote after a President of their party vetoed the bill, but that's speculation)

[Beck_isright]

"The concerns over shutting down FR, DU or any other internet site based on this law are misplaced."

I think not. The ruling, from what I've read and heard is so broad that it allows a lot of freedom to individual courts to interpret. Although the internet and written communications are excluded in the law, the concept of "attack ads" could leave FR and other conservative sites open to legal attack. Regardless of the constitutionality of the suits that could be filed, the volume and expense of large well organized left wingers attacking these sites could financially bankrupt them. Not to mention is all that it takes is one Clinton appointed judge to sign an injunction to prevent political discussion on a site because it is allegedly being used to promote a candidate or attack a candidate. It would take months to clear the mess up on the legal docket and by then the financial health of a FR or other site would be iffy, or the election over.

"However, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that political speach may be suppressed based on it's content, you can expect, probably sooner rather than later, a new law that would simlarly restrict speech on the internet. Or maybe just some sort of civil suit so the Courts can make the law, they like doing that."

I think you will soon see this law passed in the 9th Circuit where FR is located. It might be a state or local law, but it will be pressed through for the specific purpose of shuting down this site or require "blocking" software from ISP's. Not to mention the demorats don't have to have a law "passed" since they get legistlation through the bench anyways.