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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[Beck_isright]

" Does FR run poltical ads during Seinfeld on a local station?"

Not part of the discussion or decision.

"The reason the ad bans passed is because people got sick of attack ads and it had popular support."

According to a liberal interpretation, FR could be considered a non-stop conservative advertisement for Republicans and conservative causes.

"No one holds a gun to anybody's head to read FR but when people see the attack ads during their favorite show(etc.etc) a majority of the populace thinks that is."

No one holds a gun to anybody's head to watch Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS either. No one holds a gun to anybody's head to listen to Rush, Hannity or Colmes. No one holds a gun to anybody's head to read the NYT, WP, etc. But now, the 9th Circuit Court has been given the power to interpret what is and isn't acceptable speech 60 days before an election. You're an idiot if you do not think that someone is not planning to take out talk radio and the internet. Even if they lose the case on appeal, to kill FR and much of talk radio, all the left has to do is get an injunction to shut down a website or radio show within 60 days before the election. Pay attention to the details. Rush is anticipating this attack now. FR will be part of the onslaught also.

[hellinahandcart]

True but not everyone here can AFFORD to financially

Isn't it wonderful how CFR has taken money out of politics? Now, only people with a whole lot of it can participate...

[July 4th]

Yup - you've got it.

[brewcrew]

While some here may be comfortable with this, we can never - NEVER - give an administration with whom we are "comfortable" any more power than we'd give to one that would make us nothing but uncomfortable.

In other words, if you think this will be okay under a Bush administration, think about the ramifications of this ruling under a Hillary! administration.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

But hey, I can still type whatever I want on the internet. America is hanging on my every word. It'll be okay.

LOL...yep thats it...the internet will clear up all the confusion out there. LOL

BigMack

[mrsmith]

To repeat: The law is clearly not intended to apply to us.

That could be changed though, not by deliberately changing the law to specifically do so, but by changing communication laws about the internet as the internet becomes more of a mass medium (ie: making it officially a cable or satellite media). That event could even be hastened by groups using the internet to circumvent this new law.

I should correct something: it is not the fundraising that Jim may have to change then but the future anonymity of future FR donors (as I understand the law) to continue using donations to publish "electioneering communications" on FR during the restricted periods.

Just musing about the future, I hope no one starts going nuts over this!

Heck, perhaps we'd have the same consideration as the politically protected "official media".

[concerned about politics]

LOL. So when are you running for the presidency? Get over yourslf. Take a break.
The Consitituion gave the people in Washington, and the court, the right to pull this off. Remember?

[Sabertooth]

You really believe that the ads and information will stop because of CFR??

"Stop?" No, that's not what I said.

Information will be restricted, that's the point. I've used the word "restricted."

Political speech should not be restricted.

Political speech should not be abridged.

[Dane]

Can the Candidates run all the ads they want to as long as they pay for it?

Actually CFR is in regards to "Federal Candidates".

A communication refers to a clearly identified federal candidate if it contains the candidate’s name,nickname or image, or makes any unambiguous reference to the person or their status as a candidate, such as “the Democratic candidate for Senate.”

In Arnold's case he was a state candidate. My point is that the liberal media is not omnipotent. As seen by the California recall.

[Weimdog]

Download the decision here in pdf -

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf

[Howlin]

According to a liberal interpretation, FR could be considered a non-stop conservative advertisement for Republicans and conservative causes.

So you believe that after today there will be no internet, period?

[Mo1]

OFF TOPIC

But who is this chic they have on FNC right now doing the interviews??

[onyx]

Thanks for your sanity here today. :) I'm going shopping, before my Christmas spirit is further dampened.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I hope Jim Robinson puts his two cents in soon."

I agree wholeheartedly. And the fact that we can't really be sure if this effects FR is one of the problems with the law. Will we be criminals if we talk about politics within 60 days of an election? Does anything in FR constitute a political ad under the definitions of the law? What about the 50,000-audience limit? Does that apply to FR? And so forth . .

[justshutupandtakeit]

I can't figure how they can produce so much foam. They are always foaming at the mouth about almost everything and it never runs out. Genetic?

[Reagan Man]

>>>I suspect most will learn nothing from this exercise, and will still refuse to look at history when predicting the consequences of actions.

Well said and so true.

I don't know what it will take for the people of America, to wise up and see what decisions like this are doing to their right of individual freedoms. In the old days, citizens would be standing on roof tops, shouting out their disapproval of such excessive government restrictions. Today, many people, even many FReepers, call such outrages, nothing more then "bitching and moaning". LOL They want the people of this great nation, to remain silent and subservient to the powers that be. It would appear, the US Constitution means nothing to them. NOTHING!

Free Republic is suppose be about defending the US Constitution and advancing the conservative agenda. Both the Constitution and the conservative agenda have taken major hits today with this decision by the USSC.

[concerned about politics]

Late comer here....has anyone seen the opinion? SCOTUS doesn't have it on the site yet

LOL. Good question.

[cc2k]

July 4th wrote:

---

Anyone here can still walk into a TV station, cut a check from their personal funds and run an attack ad.

---

I'm almost certain that your "attack ad" couldn't mention the name of any candidate, mention enough identifying information about any candidate to enable people to figure out who your ar talking about, and it certainly couldn't have any pictures of any candidates in it or any voices of any candidates.

The restrictions on "electioneering communications" in this law apply to everyone except for actual declared candidates and the news media. Unless you declare your candidacy, you can't run an attack ad, not even with your own personal funds.

I'd like to be proven wrong on this, but I think I've got a pretty good understanding of the actual law as it is today.

[Howlin]

Lisa somebody.......but I have no idea.


Now what "shocking news" is he getting ready to tell us?

[jwalsh07]

Well if that one didn't hurt, try this one: from Justice Scalia:

185 Page 186 187
Cite as: 540 U. S. ____ (2003) 19
Opinion of SCALIA, J.
The system indeed. The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that re- quires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy. In scene 3 the Court, having abandoned most of the First Amendment weaponry that Buckley left intact, will be even less equipped to resist the incumbents’ writing of the rules of political debate.

The federal elec- tion campaign laws, which are already (as today’s opinions show) so voluminous, so detailed, so complex, that no ordinary citizen dare run for office, or even contribute a significant sum, without hiring an expert advisor in the field, can be expected to grow more voluminous, more detailed, and more complex in the years to come—and always, always, with the objective of reducing the exces- sive amount of speech. 186

I'm curious though, does the slow boil in the frog pot ever bother you?