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.

[Beck_isright]

"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."

Newspeak became law today.

[Dane]

What you are forgetting here is the the "Media" still has the same pull on the "Unwashed Masses" that it always had, only now they can really rig the elections. I.E. CBS/ABC/NBC= most watched networks by the "common" voter

Yep they did a great job in protecting Grey Davis didn't they.

[Bob J]

Since the libs, typified by MoveOn, have a head start in this arena, the libs are hurt more than the pubs on the 60 day restriction.

On the other hand, excluding the press is a gigantic equality before the law discrepancy. Sure, they hold a special place in our Bill of Rights, but granting them rights and powers while exluding same from your average Joe is just plain unexplainable.

[PhiKapMom]

I remember that daisy ad -- I don't remember seeing the Goldwater name but it is an ad that I will NEVER forget. Didn't need to say it!

You are so right! A good ad guy can make an impression -- that means Bush needs to hire one.

[cc2k]

July 4th wrote:

---

And it is only limited to groups. It is not a total ban on electioneering speech.

---

No, it's not only limited to groups. It is a total ban on electioneering communication by anyone other than the candidates themselves and "the news media."

If I want to personally produce a television advertisement that says the Democrat candidate for President will be dangerous for America, and I personally buy the airtime to show that advertisement on television, if I do this within 60 days of the election, I am in violation of this law.

[AAABEST]

I know this is bad when you're providing such commentary.

Whenvever your posts are more than "BTTT!" I know something is up.

[PhiKapMom]

Kind of like the idea myself! After reading some of the replies, I am even more of one if possible!

[onyx]

I'm going to work to put REPUBLICANS in office, rather than sit back and let the Democrats take back the power.

Well Stated and something the "Sky is Falling" crowd do not seem to realize whether on purpose or through their pack mentality led by a few anti-Bush types. And they call us Bushbots -- yeah right! Still would like to know who the Hillary supporters are on FR -- wonder if some are posting on this thread against the President like he made the ruling all by himself!

BRAVO! Howlin and PKM. 587 posted on 12/10/2003 9:20:29 AM PST by PhiKapMom

[NittanyLion]

Whatever you say... LOL.

[Jack Black]

That's a joke. The Democrats don't have to obey campaign finance laws. Only the Republicans do. Maybe down at the local level, a few bucks here or there, you're right. But the parties can no longer get around the soft money ban - an illegal attempt to circumvent it would be far too obvious with the individual contribution limits. The GOP will win out in hard money. What will likely happen is that the DNC and RNC will give a nod to certain issue advocacy groups, that will then get the excess large-money donors.

You haven't seen George Soros give $15 million to front groups dedicated to defeating George Bush? He quite candidly said that is what it was for. Why isn't that soft money? Becuase it's Move On and not the DNC.

[Beck_isright]

"I do not agree with several of Bush's decisions but this is not a perfect world where we always get what we want. Perhaps you have never accepted the fact that politics means compromise and that you must appeal to millions of moderate voters to get any power. The far right will never find a candidate acceptable to them. Bush is the most conservative president we have had in a century (even Reagan who regularly compromised with the RATS) and no one more conservative would have even a slim chance. Since you have forgotten someone should remind you that he didn't even win a majority of the popular votes.

This law is perfectly constitutional as Article I, Section 4 of the constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate the manner of holding elections.

Free speech is not absolute and one cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre or expect to be able to curse someone out to their face or make up bold faced lies about them. This "restriction" is of the same ilk and no more of a problem than the others.

Hysterical sputtering and whining never did anyone any good and any alternative to Bush is far too horrible to comtemplate. I have no regard for the minor leaguers regularly touted as saviours by the perpetually disgruntled who frequent these threads. Nor can they be counted on in a pinch since just about anything suffices to get their panties in a twist."

Remember your words when Rush, Hannity, Savage, Boortz, etc. all go off the air or talk about breast enlargement or Canadian Baby seals, 60 days before the election.

[puroresu]

This will harm conservatives because the NRA, pro-lifers, or others can no longer run ads exposing a candidates' record during the 60 days before an election.

Many conservatives have won because such ads smoked out leftist candidates who were posing as "moderates".

Yes, lefties can't run such ads either, but they don't need to because we aren't putting up stealth candidates. Jesse Helms didn't sneak into office by posing as a "moderate" or a "liberal", but many of his opponents tried to sneak in by pretending to be far more conservative than they were. Independent ads by pro-life groups and other conservatives helped smoke them out by by-passing the media outlets who were assuring everyone that Harvey Gantt and Jim Hunt were "moderate" candidates.

[Sir_Ed]

"I hearby pledge to form a small group - one who would be covered by this law - and to run a political ad in a local paper against the representative(s) of our choice within 60-days of the first speech-restricted election."

No newspaper around will accept your money...they'll be afraid of the consequences.

I, for one, will never again vote for George Bush.

Ed

[concerned about politics]

There's a lot of libertarians and liberals here today.
This is now the law. They'd better get used to it. Bush didn't do it alone, as many seem to be saying here. Everyone in Washington was on board. So fire them all? Good luck!

[Steve_Seattle]

"This law could not be used in this fashion at this time. But as the internet contiues to rise as a general news medium it may."

Placing restrictions in a site like this would be consistent with the spirit behind CFR, and no one should think that some members of congress wouldn't like to do that. Ted Kennedy, for example, wrote a preface for a book (damn, can't remember the title) advocating government regulation of sites like this, imposing a kind of "fairness" doctrine, etc., on websites. Their hostile attitude to Fox, the Internet, and talk-radio should be taken seriously; they will do what they can to regulate political speech they don't like, and with CFR the camel's nose is in the tent.

[Howlin]

Couldn't find one, could you?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Congress was given the power to regulate the manner of holding elections under the constitution and the first amendment does not change that. Freedom of speech is not absolute and is restricted in many appropriate situations.

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.

[Howlin]

Did you actually go over and look at DU?

How are they taking it?

[hellinahandcart]

The point is that CFR would not prevent a POLITICAL ad like that from running today, as long as it does not mention a candidate's name.

And forbidding the mention of a candidate's name *is* a restriction on free speech. The most important kind.

YOU get real.

[Reagan Man]

US Constitution, Amendment One says:.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".

The USSC has made this part of the US Constitution, null and void. I thought they would strike down this part of CFR as being unconstitutional. They did not and in the long run, America will suffer because of this judicial activism and court created law. This decision is an abomination.