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.

[Sir_Ed]

"You probably never did in the first place. If one issue turns you into a Democrat, my guess is you were "born that way." LOL."

Huh?

I am a GOP activist and two-term Central Committee precinctman for my county.

My first campaign was going door to door in Orange County passing out literature for John Schmitz several decades ago, and my last campaign was working as a full-time volunteer campaigner for our local GOP Representative.

I have walked my precincts and many others hundreds of times througout the years and passed out tens of thousands of flyers and campaign materials.

I helped manage several campaigns and took a year off to go around the state and help pass an OCA Pro-Life petition in Oregon.

I have been on hundreds of pickets, demonstrations and marches and was involved in Operation Rescue for a year, when I went up and down the West Coast picketing abortion clinics.

I helped found and wrote for, edited and drew editorial cartoons for a anti-tax local newspaper (all without pay, for over a year).

Watch those spasmodic, knee-jerk reactions when tempted to judge someone without knowing the facts.

Ed

[aristeides]

I was asking whether your Article I, Section 4 defense of CFR would not also apply there too.

[jwalsh07]

I poste a link in HTML up above. I would direct you to the dissents of Scalia, Kennedy, Rehnquist and Thomas. Play close attention to how O'Connor turned 180 degrees since Buckley.

But I should remind you that I've already read most of their dissents. You are the one operating from, shall we say, ignorance? No offense but you are accusing me as well as others of shooting from the hip but we're not. You need to look past this decision and see where it goes.

One thing we know historically is that SCOTUS precedents do not compress over time, they expand. I can see where the expansion will go absent a change in the court, I am surprised that you can't.

[Stopislamnow]

If anyone thinks this will get repealed or cut back they are utterly insane. This is more than anything, an incumbent insurance policy. Stifling dissent and challengers to those already inside the machine. BLOAT!

[Protagoras]

Thomas Sowell said something to the effect that self-described elites mistake confusion in their own minds for complexity in the real world.

Great reference. Do you happen to know where I might find the original in my Sowell collection? Or online?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Speeches are not banned at any time.

Laws already created the catagory of speech crimes though they are called violations of election laws such as: giving speeches within a polling place; passing out campaign literature within 100 yards of a polling place; putting up posters within 100 yards of a polling place; buying votes (why should that be illegal?); or having sample ballots showing how to vote RAT posted within the polling place.

Advertizing is part of a "manner" of holding elections.

[FirstPrinciple]

What kind of chicken-dung response is "If you pass it I will not veto it." Where is the President who proudly challenged the terrorists to "Bring it on?" Is his bravado only limited to enemies far away that he won't have to personally deal with?

[MEG33]

I can't believe the rhetoric going on here.."Bloody revolution?"

[Romulus]

Congratulations; that makes two of you.

[IGOTMINE]

Handbills were the medium of the day.

What do you think they said?

[Protagoras]

Good Grief!

It takes a lot to get the attention of many people. The statement is correct in many, if not all regards.

[Lady Eileen]

Well said.

[San Jacinto]

find out which portions WERE struck down.

SCOTUS stood strong for the right of 17 year olds and younger to make political contributions. That's about it, I believe.

[justshutupandtakeit]

My statements never implied otherwise.

Jefferson helped Freanau, Bache and Callender ply their character assassinations but that was not what I was speaking of. The press back then was far more irresponsible but they were OPENLY partisian not pretending to objectivity as it does today.

[Sabertooth]

Now .. do you really think they won't be able to make their point in future ads??

At certain points in the campaign, yes. That's one of today's rulings.

It already happens with the Federa Matching Fund scam. If you accept matching funds, you run into problems if you need to make a push in this or that state late in the primary campaign. Or, once that stage is over, if you need to get your message out during the summer. That's why Bush decided not to accept the funds: because he didn't want the restrictions.

Dean is doing the same thing this year.

One major effect of these spending restrictions is that they protect incumbents and frontrunners, to the disadvantage of challengers.

Why should that be? What good is served?

And yet, in exchange, we get restrictions on our free political speech.

[P-Marlowe]

Nonsense piled on nonsense is still nonsense. Article I, Section 4 of the US constitution gives Congress the right to regulate elections.

But the first amendment, which was enacted to limit the ability of Congress to regulate anything under its plenary powers in Article 1 Section 4, prohibits the Congress from abridging speech. So if the congress has the power to regulate elections, it does not include the power to regulate speech in connection with those elections.

The first amendment was specifically designed to protect all forms of political speech. The Supreme Court has oveturned the first amendment and made the first amendment subject to the powers of Congress under Article 1 section 4. The Bill of Rights has been turned on its head.

Congress does not have the power to regulate speech in connection with elections.

Congress does not have the power to regulate speech in connection with elections.

Congress does not have the power to regulate speech in connection with elections.

Congress does not have the power to regulate speech in connection with elections.

[oceanview]

you will never be able to "start a newspaper" that has the effect of the NYT. The media uses the NYT as its textbook for what to put on the new every night. Even if no one except the CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN producers read the NYT, and your new newspaper had 1 million readers, the NYT would be more powerful then your paper. Bernard Goldberg describes this perectly in his books.

Most swing voters make their decisions within 60 days of the election, and these ads are a big way these people get information. Those same people won't be watching the NRA cable news network, they will be tuning in to the networks and reading the papers, and without ads, only the liberal bias remains.

Big media now controls the fate of elections in this country, we were making progress taking that power away from them sloely but surely, now they have it all back.

[CarryaBigStick]

What a black day for our Constitution. Sandra Day O'Conner has turned out to be such a bitter disappointment.

I'm so glad that Ronald Reagan is in no mental shape to understand how she ruled on this case, it would have probably killed him.

[billbears]

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

And it would matter again how? How many of the current Justices were nominated by Republicans? I'll give you a hint, it's more than five

[justshutupandtakeit]

They are not restricted by this law why would they "go off the air." Are you implying these are paid shills?