Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)
FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

Posted on 12/10/2003 7:09:03 AM PST by July 4th

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,941-1,949 next last
To: ArneFufkin
Are you joking? CFR is constitutional?? By all means please enlighten those of us on FR who think otherwise. Would love to hear your arugment!
21 posted on 12/10/2003 7:16:41 AM PST by KantianBurke (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The original reporting on Bush v Gore said that the decision was favorable to Gore. I am sure it is a mixed bag but we'll have to wait and see but you're right about one thing, with Stevens and O'Connor writing for the majority it's more bag than mix.
22 posted on 12/10/2003 7:17:26 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Geron, you were full of crap from day one.

It's a Constitutionally valid law. You don't know jack squat, do you?

23 posted on 12/10/2003 7:17:28 AM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor
Death of the Republic

I really hope people are getting fed up enough to do something.
24 posted on 12/10/2003 7:18:02 AM PST by Stopislamnow (Islam-Founded by Evil, and thriving on death. Just like the modern democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
No. Bush never said that. He warned Congress that if they let it passed he would veto it.

NOT VETO IT.

darn... I need to proof read

25 posted on 12/10/2003 7:18:12 AM PST by GeronL (My tagline for rent..... $5 per month or 550 posts/replies, whichever comes first... its a bargain!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Where are THEY?? Where are the FReepers who said not to worry because it would be struck down?

Right here, had no problem with the soft money bans, it was the ad bans, which no one knows as of yet were upheld by SCOTUS

26 posted on 12/10/2003 7:18:32 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: July 4th
The soft money ban is sure stopping Soros, isn't it? </sarcasm>
27 posted on 12/10/2003 7:18:49 AM PST by NonValueAdded ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." GWB 9/20/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
"He warned Congress that if they let it passed he would veto it."

He signed it anyway.

28 posted on 12/10/2003 7:18:50 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
You're the anti-Constitutionalist. Go to Liberia with your anarchy.

If opposing bans on issue adds within 60 days of an election makes on an anarchist, then you can label me an anarchist too. You should also label the NRA an anarchist organization because it opposed the 60 day ban as well. I suspect that you will also want to label Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia as anarchists based on their dissents from the Supreme Court's decision.

29 posted on 12/10/2003 7:18:57 AM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: July 4th
Still pending, the opinion on whether the government should be allowed to summarily execute anyone who criticizes a Supreme Court decision.
30 posted on 12/10/2003 7:19:08 AM PST by thoughtomator (The U.N. is a terrorist organization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: July 4th
Link! We need links!
31 posted on 12/10/2003 7:19:10 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
BUMP!
32 posted on 12/10/2003 7:19:33 AM PST by Orangedog (difference between a hamster & a gerbil?..there's more dark-meat on a hamster!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

It appears more likely with this ruling that we will have a Democrat Prtesident and a Democrat controlled Congress.

With all that's been going on, I think it may be time for conservatives and christians to build a fortress and dig up bunkers around their house. This does not appeear to bode well at all for conservatives and christians.

33 posted on 12/10/2003 7:19:56 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
No. Bush never said that. He warned Congress that if they let it passed he would veto it.

He didn't say that...

34 posted on 12/10/2003 7:20:09 AM PST by Mo1 (House Work, If you do it right , will kill you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I just can't see how they can uphold the 60-day speech restrictions without completely trampling over past election law jurisprudence and the Constitution. But the media has said nothing about this yet - they're only talking about the soft money issue right now. Looks like I gotta read the case.
35 posted on 12/10/2003 7:20:11 AM PST by July 4th (George W. Bush, Avenger of the Bones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Having a bad day? I guess sucking up to the GOP establishment isn't always what it's cracked up to be, eh?
36 posted on 12/10/2003 7:20:15 AM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Banning some people from advertising their views while allowing others is not Constitutional. Where does it say we can have different laws for different people?

That is NOT Constitutional.

Pissing in public is free speech but speech is not???

37 posted on 12/10/2003 7:20:25 AM PST by GeronL (My tagline for rent..... $5 per month or 550 posts/replies, whichever comes first... its a bargain!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Supreme Court Upholds Political Money Law
6 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties.



Those donations, called "soft money," had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads.


Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals capitalized on a loophole in the existing, Watergate-era campaign money system.


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.




38 posted on 12/10/2003 7:20:45 AM PST by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dane
will on of these 9 old $#&($ ever die?
39 posted on 12/10/2003 7:21:04 AM PST by conservativefromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Flux Capacitor
Mr. President. Your "sign-the-damn-thing-and-let-SCOTUS-fix-it" plan isn't working out. What's Plan B?

Same immediate reaction that I had.

A black day in the land of conservatism and constitutionalism.
A red letter day for leftists and anti constitutionalists.

40 posted on 12/10/2003 7:21:07 AM PST by evad (Most politicians lie, cheat and steal. It's all they know to do and they won't stop...EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,941-1,949 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson