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]

They [the campaign] only exist in conjunction with the run-up to an election.

There - you've just said it yourself. The campaign is not the election. It may exist in conjunction, but that does not make it the same thing. Time, place, and manner refer to the election itself. The ballot, party access, voting rights. In election law, campaigns and elections are two entirely different chapters with entirely different jurisprudence. Even in the seminal campaign finance refrom case, Buckley, the actual election gets barely a mention. It's an entirely different event, and those who write the laws treat it as such.

[NittanyLion]

No, because Howlin isn't my original screen name.

Yes...how foolish of him for not realizing you have multiple accounts. LOL.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Wonder why it is that those believing this to be a horrible law (the death knell of the Republic) keep pretending that it stops ALL ads before an election and ignore the FACT that ads can still be funded from hard money at ANY time and with ANY content?

It couldn't be because it undermines their claims that the apocalypse is just around the corner could it?

[FirstPrinciple]

I disagree. When Congress passes a law that prohibits us from being critical on them right before the election, you know there is something wrong with that. There is a huge incentive for Congressmen to vote for this to keep them in office. Hence, this is an "Incumbent Protection Act." While sitting politicians get free face time from the media, it will get harder for challengers to go up against an incumbent. When do you want to attack your opponent? Just before the election. It is like MLB deciding that no runs scored from the 7-9th innings will get counted for the outcome of a game. The perverse incentives this bill creates to keep the incumbents in office is absolutely disgusting. Bush should have never signed it, but caved to pressure. Or, who knows, he is a big govt type. So, he must have liked it.

[FirstPrinciple]

Hey, how come you forgot Sarbanes-Oaxley. Bush gleefully signed that law as well.

[FirstPrinciple]

By what you are saying, the NAACP (back when it used to be a civil rights group) would have never been able to make political change in the south. They were able to launch an anonymous campaign against the Jim Crow politicians under several umbrella groups, and would have been absolutely unsuccessful if they actually put their own name in their political campaign. Anonymity is a big deal, especially because most ordinary folks do not have enough clout to voice their political concerns. They join a PAC, which raises soft money from other like minded individuals. What we are saying is that the silent majority, of which most Americans are part of, will not be allowed to participate in politics any longer, especially right before the election when people are payign attention.

[Howlin]

I don't have mulitple accounts. I had another screen name for work-related reasons, which are none of your business, Your Honor.

And most everybody here knows it.

[woodyinscc]

While sitting politicians get free face time from the media, it will get harder for challengers to go up against an incumbent. When do you want to attack your opponent? Just before the election. It is like MLB deciding that no runs scored from the 7-9th innings will get counted for the outcome of a game. The perverse incentives this bill creates to keep the incumbents in office is absolutely disgusting.

I know this is besides the facts of your argument, and basically unprincipled, but what better time for this to be implemented? We have majorities in both Houses of Congress and in all likelihood will increase these in the next election. It will be better for us to wait until the dims wake up, and smell the backed up sewer. With their complicit press, they will holler to fix this post haste. I am sure our side with a few key concessions on their part, will be willing to oblige.!!

[justshutupandtakeit]

The "and" meant all three must be present as parts of the indictment. One could print something false without being aware of its falsehood so only deliberate malicious and scandalous lies were prosecutable.

And yes truth was an acceptable defense under the A&S acts NO MATTER if it was scandalous or malicious. State laws covering similiar matters did NOT allow truth as a defense.

Certainly the RATmedia would be subject to prosecution for sedition under those acts.

[E.G.C.]

Yes I do think it's unconstitutional and to day that I'm overreacting and that Rush and Shaun are overactting is very stupid, very idiotic and very foolish.

What this is going to do is alloow goverment bureaucrat to do some very malicious and very harmful things right before election time people like myself will not be allowed to address these issues. This could very well effect FR too even though it's an Internet outlet because if people like me call a candidate to the carpet on their policy it might end up being construed as an "attack ad" even though it's on the Internet. The way this was written is that bad.

I've read the entire thing in it's entirety and it is indeed very dangerous dicta that is going to end up doing enormous harm to this country and to say Rush and Shaun and myeself and a lot of the other freepers are overaccting with our observations is stupid, idiotic and foolish.

Yesterday's Rush show was him at his very best since his return to the air and he was right on the money about this law. You might try and read some of the other observations on this. It would give you a far different perspective than what you've stated.

[Eastbound]

"Certainly the RATmedia would be subject to prosecution for sedition under those acts."

Thanks for the info. Though the sedition act itself has been repealed, looks like some of the substance of the act has been resurrected with CFR.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This is just silly any candidate can run ANY ad he wishes at ANY time with ANY content as long as it is funded with hard money. Only the stupid ones will be crimped by the ban on soft money ads.

All those in the Chicken Little Brigade seen to ignore this FACT. Wonder why?

It is quite tiresome to constantly be told over almost every issue that the Constitution is destroyed! the Nation is finished!! the Gulag is just around the corner!!! Ever hear of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

[E.G.C.]

Just for reference to all participating in this thread I would like to call your attention to this post.Justice Antonin Scaila's Dissent.

I think it'll give everyone an idea of just how very dangerous this dicta is.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Election CAMPAIGNS are part of an election.

[bvw]

You're right. Just like the Commerce Clause! Tyranny expands, balloons, blows like the Mariah into every possible expansionary imagination of raw Power.

[El Gato]

And it gives authority to our elected officials to write laws and it gives authority to the SC to override them if it thinks they are unconstitutional. That is what the document says. Do you wish to ignore all the parts except for the BOR ?

I don't ignore any parts, but the Bill of Rights are amendments to the basic document, if there is a conflict, the amendment overrides. The preamble to the Bill of Rights, makes it quite clear that they are "further declaratory and restrictive clauses." enacted to "prevent abue of its powers". (both are quotes from the preamble though I've reversed the order)

Congress, and hence the federal government, is not allowed to exercise the powers granted to them in such a way as to violate the rights protected by the amendments. Thus they cannot "regulate" interstate commerce in such a way as to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, to cite an example other than the one under consideration here. Similarly they cannot make a law on the "Times, Places and Manners of holding elections" in such a way as to abridge the freedom of speech or of the press. They also cannot do so in a manner that would restrict the right to vote on account of race (Amd. XV) or sex (Amd. XIX).

The power of Congress does not extend to specifying the Manner of electing Presidential electors, only Representative and Senators. They can legislate on the time and places, but the date must be the same throughout the country.

Tell us where in the Constitution the Supreme Court is delegated the power to "authority to the SC to override them (laws and regulations) if it thinks they are unconstitutional".

[jmc813]

Welcome back Roscoe. Long time, no see. Hope all is well.

[justshutupandtakeit]

If Scalia is talking about the CFR how does he get the idea that it stops criticism of the government from it?

[justshutupandtakeit]

ANY ad can be run at ANY time with ANY content as long as it is funded with hard money. How does this crimp anyone other than the stupid?

[El Gato]

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)

My bad, veto proof would be 67 votes (more than 2/3) not 60 votes or 60%. So the law was NOT passed by veto proof margins in either house of Congress. So President Bush could have killed this abomination dead as a doornail with a stroke of his veto pen...somebody did give him a veto pen, didn't they?