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

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[Howlin]

Thanks for the information; I'll skip the editorializing.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no one word within this law stating that you can't "criticize the government."

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

[NittanyLion]

Two thirds majority to override, vote in house was 252 for, 167 against. Two thirds would have been 279 for. So not only would the veto not have been overridden, I would be willing to bet some of the 252 fors would have changed to against. So once again, Bush signed a bill he knew was unconstitutional even though he knew a Veto would not be overridden.

And I might add, the Senate vote was 59-41, nowhere near enough to override a veto.

[stljoe71]

exactly
http://www.rudehost.com/assorted/repboycott.asp

[JCEccles]

Is Scalia a "foamer"?

[proud American in Canada]

"I lovya Dubya, but this was one HUGE mistake on his part..."

Yes it was. I am stunned at the ruling and very disappointed that he signed this bill.

[Howlin]

That sound you here is my joke going right over your head.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Our outlaw SCOTUS is telling us that our bill of Rights does not mean what it says. Our only Constitution is our RATIFIED Constitution.

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

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"Shall" means the State is not allowed to restrict our RIGHTS.


"Fundamental national interest" is the same as "compelling State interest", not any powers granted by our Constitution government.

We now have a totalitarian ruling class willing and able to rule us with the same sovereign immunity power as inflicted upon the Branch Davidians in 1993.

This blackrobe fiat ruling is without any basis in The Law of our Land. SCOTUS says it has rewritten our 1st Amendment, but our RATIFIED COnstitution declares otherwise. Congress and G.W. Bush are conspirators violating the RATIFIED Constitution which alone grants them temporary, limited powers.

Our government has usurped nearly all of its limited powers, without war's destruction. Our Bill of Rights is to mean not what the words say, but only what we are told that they mean.

All three branches of government are conspiring to control We the People.

Nothing is more outrageous.

This justification to curb free speech is to prevent disallowed "criticizing" political speech? Yes. Because of the presumption that political party money might influence corrupt politicians? Yes. That was the reasoning of McCain.

SCOTUS has ruled that our Constitution is not allowed to means what it says. SCOTUS does not have that authority. The ruling class does not have lawful authority.

These blackrobes & Co. are outlaws.

If our RATIFIED Constitution is so nullified by action of the ruling class, then the government once established by contract among the several states through We the People is without consent and any lawful authority. The nullification of this social contract makes our federal government unlawful.

Our own rogue branches of government have established their own devine right of kings.

We the Peoplke shall not tolerate this outlaw government.

This Government of the powerful, by the powerful, and for the powerful shall perish from the earth.

In this time of islamo-Terror War, our federal government is declaring itself a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST.

We citizens either control our government or it shall control us. What have we done to our children? What have we done to our only social document of self-government?

Our Revolution and War of Northern Aggression were fought over much less.

SCOTUS, Congress, and X-43 made law to abridge our "freedom of speech". Other infringements shall be so ruled, without lawful basis.

Our RATIFIED Constitution is the only Constition which we are are sworn to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution's enemies are announcing themselves.

The "compelling state interest" of our government is to destroy our RATIFIED Constitution.

If our RATIFIED Constitution is nullified, then that outlaw government is not constitutional republic government but only a power without consent of We the People, under penalty of law - as interpreted only by blackrobes, for life.

The New World Order is here, by order of the Court.

[Protagoras]

Citizens' groups are not prevented from running ads for their candidates being able to call the opposition a "dirty dog" sixty days before the election doesn't change that.

Well thought out. Not.

You have forgotten the impact of the ads which stopped Hillarycare socialism in it's tracks. Those type ads are not illegal within 60 days of an election.

I know you love to argue and would argue about anything, anywhere, anytime. But your position on this fundamental change in American governance is unbelievable.

[Miss Marple]

Having looked at the law, I do not see anything that prevents direct mailing of videotapes. Perhaps sending a free copy of Terminator III to targeted groups with messages from the President and Arnold are possible.

Books with CD's (like Ollie North's War Stories book are possible.

Direct mailings of calendars are possible.

I can think of a lot of other things that are possible within the confines of the law.

I actually thought that Bush would veto this, but I was wrong. Although I don't agree, I do understand why he didn't (Daschle was running the Senate and threatening to hold up all legislation).

So, it is up to us to think of how to get our message out, and it is also up to us to convince enough people that this law is bad and should be changed.

[hellinahandcart]

Bush promised to gut the First Amendment? I must have missed that campaign promise.

[Beck_isright]

"Yup, we know this is the plan. So, preemptively we need to sue early and sue often. Turn this into a giant fireball of litigation. That is the inevitable direction, so better get in front of the action now."

I hope JR has some good lawyers left in the bullpen.

[MineralMan]

"If there is a strategy here that the Bush Admin is trying to create, someone please explain it to me."

Oh, there's a strategy. It's to fool you into thinking that the Bush administration is conservative and cares about the Constitution.

Just wait until Bush signs the AW ban extension. You'll love that.

[Sabertooth]

So you are for politicians in taking more of our money to run in elections?

Not sure what you mean by "taking." If you mean "accepting donations," then my answer is yes.

I'm opposed to public financing of campaigns. That's just welfare for politicians.

If I was writing the Campaign Finance laws from scratch, I'd allow unlimited contributions and spending, with full and immediate disclosure of donors. I'd prohibit all foreign money.

I'd also get rid of the matching funds altogether, and remove that option from your tax forms.

[Dane]

Well, I don't expect the Democrats to do the right thing, but I do expect the Republicans to do the right thing. Is that unreasonable?

Well 2/5ths of the majority on SCOTUS were appointed by Clinton. Heck I did the right thing back in 92 and voted for Bush 41.

But of course to your rhetoric on this thread the Pubbies are not pure enough for you and you make it known. I just make it known that with your current rehetoric that you basically helped 2/5ths of the current liberal majority on SCOTUS get their seats.

[July 4th]

(1) Does this apply only to Federal candidates or to ALL State & Local candidates?

Only Federal candidates, but the door is now open for states to enact similar legislation. Many will likely do so.

(2) Can Political Parties continue to run ad's immediately before an election? If not, what are the time frame limits?

I'm still a bit unclear as to what content may be permitted, but yes. Political parties are not "independent nonparty groups" - they're not issue-advocacy groups, so they have more leeway. They may not coordinate ads with campaigns, however, or they will be subject to contribution restrictions.

(3) Do Political parties have to remove their web-sited during the banned time period?

No. This is only a broadcast media restriction.

[hchutch]

Very simple indeed:

1. Get more conservatives elected. Failing that, deny office to a left-winger.

2. Get judges confirmed. We were one justice short. Time to work on getting that changed.

3. Wake up and realize that for too long, we as conservative LET the Left get control of the major media outlets and the entertainment industry. That's come back to bite us big time.

[NittanyLion]

That sound you here is my joke going right over your head.

Well, at least then I know you're aware that Bush signed a bill he thought to be unconstitutional. I thought perhaps you were unfamiliar with how the process works, hence the reason you refuse to place some of the blame on President Bush.

[conservativefromGa]

Freedom of political speech 1776-2003
who controls what?
Presidency- Rinos
US Senate- Rinos
US House- Rinos
Supreme Court- Rinos
majority of govornships- Rinos
I sick of republicans, next time I'm asked my party affiliation I'm saying Libertarian - they may be anti war but by christ they can read a piece of paper called the constitution

[Howlin]

I thought 'winning back the Senate' was all we needed last time.

Did you forget we didn't get the 60 we needed, or are you deliberately ignorning that?

Why don't you stop your pontificating and give us YOUR solution -- who is YOUR candidate -- and how EXACTLY will you be getting the power to undo this?

It's about time you stopped taking potshots and trashing everybody and anything and put some CONCRETE PLANS on the table, bill.

Let's have it.