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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[NYC Republican]

What alternative? They're the same

So LAME. If you can't see the difference between the two, you're probably on the wrong site... Maybe the DU will be (is?) more to your liking?

[LibertyGirl77]

"And people think it's not important for Bush to be reelected?

We have GOT to get some of our people on THIS Supreme Court!"

Bush SIGNED the damn thing!

[goldstategop]

Sure, place politics before principle and party before country. And who helped bring the country to this pass? You're looking at the current occupant of the Oval Office. Not that the Democrats are much better. The two parties have demonstrated the Constitution is the last thing they care about and now the SCOTUS has joined them in raping it.

[deport]

Don't count on it. Things don't seem to be "breaking" our way lately.

---

Depending upon what Congress feels impelled to do they can change the wording of any section of this Act.... so if the Congress Critters feel a need for ads to be run prior to election day critizing candidates they'll rewrite the law....

Ups and downs.....

[GeronL]

Some people think this is OK because we can always compete with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NY TIMES, WASH POST, LA TIMES and AP by starting an e-mail newsletter, blog or talking to a neighbor.

Oh yea, we can reach an audience that big???

If the media start telling lies and lies and more lies in the last 60 days.... we can respond with... a blog?

[Protagoras]

I won't vote for Dean. So much for that inane comment.

Your heros passed the repeal of the first amendment, now you live with it.

[tomahawk]

This nation will now JAIL those who criticize officeholders by use of paid mass media 60 days before an election. It's freaking legal in Russia, but not in the U.S. now. We are becoming a basket case.

This is exactly the speech that IS protected by the Constitution. I think this nation is basically "done".

[Kevin Curry]

Molly can be countered by conservative columnists/speakers.

I am a free citizen. I refuse to have a media surrogate foisted on me to do my speaking for me, especially on policial matters.

What Molly Ivins and George Will have that I don't have is a national platform from which to speak. The only way I can compete is to choose an entity that represents my views and join my contribution with the contributiuons of like-minded citizens to pay the enormous costs of getting that message out.

That right has now been denied me.

[LibertyGirl77]

Single issue petulance????

This is the CONSTITUTION we're talking about! It's hardly petty!

[KantianBurke]

What makes you think he won't appoint a moderate like O'Connor for the Supreme Court should an opening arise??

Mega bump question of the day after seeing this bill he signed be upheld.

[Dane]

Your heros passed the repeal of the first amendment, now you live with it

Huh, Clinton SCOTUS appointess, Ginsberg and Breyer are not my heroes.

[Howlin]

Well, CNN and MSNBC aren't even reporting about this, whatever that means.

[Mo1]

But, hey, it will give some of these people MORE to complain about!

Well, we don't want them to be bored huh?

[aristeides]

A Republican Congress passed it and Bush signed it..... and this is why we need more of them??

You forgot to add, And a Supreme Court with 7 Republican and 2 Democratic appointees upheld it.

[Protagoras]

This is exactly the speech that IS protected by the Constitution. I think this nation is basically "done".

No question. This is the end of the beginning. It starts now in earnest. Keep your powder dry.

[goodnesswins]

HUH? Soros? WROTE THE LAW? Guess I don't remember that little factoid.

[Moby Grape]

Yes, Congress could (but won't) change the limit on free speech that this abomination of a law has brought...but the KEY lesson here is that the United States Supreme Court will UPHOLD ATTMEPTS BY OUR GOVERNMENT TO LIMIT FREE SPEECH..and that should send shivers down your spine.

[Sabertooth]

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

True, but shouldn't the President have vetoed this bill?

Wouldn't that be a better consolation?

[vbmoneyspender]

Opinion of THOMAS, J. breathtaking scope, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), directly targets and constricts core politi- cal speech, the ihprimary object of First Amendment pro- tection.ls Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 410R411 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Because the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application" to speech uttered during a campaign for politi- cal office,li Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971)), our duty is to approach these restrictions with the utmost skepticismls and subject them to the ihstrictest scrutiny.lt Shrink Missouri, supra, at 412 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).

In response to this assault on the free exchange of ideas and with only the slightest consideration of the appropriate standard of review or of the Court"s traditional role of protecting First Amendment freedoms, the Court has placed its imprimatur on these unprecedented restrictions. The very purpose of the First Amendment [is] to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.ly Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 390 (1969).

Yet today the fundamental principle that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, breathtaking scope, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), directly targets and constricts core politi- cal speech, the “primary object of First Amendment pro- tection.” Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 410–411 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Because “the First Amendment ’has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for politi- cal office,” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 223 (1989) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971)), our duty is to ap- proach these restrictions “with the utmost skepticism” and subject them to the “strictest scrutiny.” Shrink Missouri, supra, at 412 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). In response to this assault on the free exchange of ideas and with only the slightest consideration of the appropri- ate standard of review or of the Court’s traditional role of protecting First Amendment freedoms, the Court has placed its imprimatur on these unprecedented restrictions. The very “purpose of the First Amendment [is] to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 390 (1969). Yet today the fundamental principle that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting), is cast aside in the purported service of preventing “corruption,” or the mere “appearance of corrup- tion.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 26 (1976) (per curiam).

Apparently, the marketplace of ideas is to be fully open only to defamers, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964); nude dancers, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560 (1991) (plurality opinion); pornographers, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002); flag burners, United States v. Eichman, 496 U. S. 310 (1990); and cross burners, Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. ___ (2003).