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 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 1,941-1,949 next last
Comment #321 Removed by Moderator
To: Miss Marple
I'm waiting for details, too...and like others have said....the workarounds are already being placed....kinda like the IRS laws.....LOL
322
posted on
12/10/2003 8:21:02 AM PST
by
goodnesswins
(If Hillary RUNS for Prez........ahhhh....................I can't say it.....)
To: Dane
If I remember correctly, there was a veto-proof majority for this in the Senate. So a veto wouldn't have stopped this. McCain and the media had built up too much public pressure for the Senate to stand against it.
Now, the question is how to work under these new rules, whatever they are. The first test of this will be the Rat primaries. How are they going to compete with each other without attack ads? It should be a fascinating spectacle.
To: Impeach the Boy
Amen, John...the LA Times was NOT a newspaper in the weeks prior to the California election..they were an advocacy group....the media will run "campaign" ads in "news" formats And they really stopped Schwarzenegger from winning.
324
posted on
12/10/2003 8:21:30 AM PST
by
Dane
To: July 4th
I agree this law may on balance benefit the Republican Party. That's no reason to violate the Constitution and individuals' rights. And I'm not at all sure the law will benefit conservatism.
To: Dan from Michigan
BTW - Here's an easy trick to get around campaign finance laws
Form a PAC, donate thousands of dollars to it, and 'split' the donations in half by "trading checks" with your buddies. "Split" the $50,000 among enough people to be the 'legal limit'.
Not that I condone that or anything.
326
posted on
12/10/2003 8:21:51 AM PST
by
Dan from Michigan
("if you wanna run cool, you got to run, on heavy heavy fuel" - Dire Straits)
To: Mo1
So Bush can depend on you to vote for him come hell or highwater? Hence, he can safely ignore anything and everything you say.
To: NYC Republican
Some of you sound just like libs on this thread, with this shrill hyperbole... Come on, aren't you over-reacting?Do you think Clarence Thomas is overreacting? Read #280.
If you think Clarence Thomas is engaging in shrill hyperbole, something is WRONG with you.
Comment #329 Removed by Moderator
To: jeremiah
What makes you think Bush can get a conservative appointed to the Supreme Court? 60 votes.
330
posted on
12/10/2003 8:23:13 AM PST
by
Howlin
(Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
To: ArneFufkin; Howlin; sinkspur
I have weeded through every post with pits stops of sanity along the way, thanks to you and a few others.
331
posted on
12/10/2003 8:23:13 AM PST
by
onyx
To: Impeach the Boy
...the media will run "campaign" ads in "news" formats. Anyone who suggests differently is asleep at the switch...
;>)
332
posted on
12/10/2003 8:23:16 AM PST
by
Who is John Galt?
("The founders DID NOT campaign nor run ads attacking their opponents" - justshutupandtakeit 12/10/03)
To: Protagoras
You must be softer than I thought if you think I'll ever avoid confrontations with people like you No, you're the crossdressing Libertarian I'M going to avoid. It's a disease prevention thing.
But you go ahead and post tripe to this forum just like you always have. For the next ten minutes or whatever time we have left for free speech in Gulag America.
To: Dane
Who won is not the point...WHAT THEY DID and what they WILL DO is the point...this ruling gives even MORE power to a totally corrupt media..as if placing limits of free speech wasn't enough.
To: NYC Republican
aren't you over-reacting? No, I'm not. A lot of restrictions of freedom have been suffered in this allegedly free country, some of them more damaging than others.
But being thrown in jail for criticizing politicians before an election is over the line in the sand that distinguishes free countries from others.
Honestly, if you took the label off this country and simply described its characteristics to an outsider there is no way it could be judged free, not with this restriction on one of the most sacred and important of rights.
So I say again (while I still can):
THIS IS NO LONGER A FREE COUNTRY.
335
posted on
12/10/2003 8:23:41 AM PST
by
freeeee
(I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it)
To: ArneFufkin
AF, how my life has/will change is inconsequential. If you go read the Constitution, you will see how the lives of ALL OF US have changed- including those who would want to voice their political views against a candidate. If I as an individual, am part of a larger group, a special interest group, am denied the right to voice a collective political opinion, then I, as an individual, am being denied my individual right to free speech.
Go read the first amendment again. And then read the SCOTUS ruling.
To: seamole
Have you seen their numbers lately?
337
posted on
12/10/2003 8:23:47 AM PST
by
Howlin
(Bush has stolen two things which Democrats believe they own by right: the presidency & the future)
To: Miss Marple
Is it that you can run any ad you want if you don't mention a candidate's name?
338
posted on
12/10/2003 8:23:53 AM PST
by
MEG33
To: Who is John Galt?
The liberal media is exempt from the law's onerous restrictions. They were after all the main boosterers of CFR. Only they will have the right to say what they want but its basically a privilege. To deter "corruption," Congress can take it away from them at a future date. Nothing in the SCOTUS ruling says Congress has to give special treatment in terms of CFR to the establishment media. And if it gets out of line, they can't do anything about it. In a way for all my anger at the rape of the Constitution by the political class and now the SCOTUS, I just hope to live to see the sight of the media being hoist one day on its own petard.
339
posted on
12/10/2003 8:23:58 AM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Catspaw
It's not posted yet on the Supremes website and it's not on findlaw yet. Then again, I have to be in the right mood to plow through 300 pages of legalese. Those who are in the mood can find most of the opinions, including the majority, at the Election Law Blog. I'm sure they'll post the remainder shortly.
340
posted on
12/10/2003 8:24:00 AM PST
by
Law
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson