Posted on 12/11/2003 6:38:18 PM PST by Commie Basher
====================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
====================================
For release: December 11, 2003
====================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008
====================================
High court's ruling is all-out assault on right to engage in politics, Libertarians say
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Libertarian Party, which is one of the plaintiffs that challenged the campaign finance law upheld on Tuesday by the Supreme Court, has denounced the ruling as an "all-out assault on the right of every American to engage in the political process."
"Why not just outlaw elections and get it over with?" said Geoffrey Neale, the Libertarian Party's national chair. "The Supreme Court has just given incumbent politicians the power to financially cripple their competitors and, in the process, award themselves lifetime jobs."
In a 5-4 ruling that shocked advocacy groups across the political spectrum, the Supreme Court endorsed key provisions of the McCain- Feingold campaign finance law. Specifically, the court upheld a ban on "soft money" contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions, as well the law's prohibition on running certain political advertisements within close proximity to an election.
But Libertarians point out that McCain-Feingold was nothing more than an incumbent protection act in the first place -- and that the court's ruling was tantamount to outlawing political competition.
"Running for office and communicating a message aren't free," Neale said. "So making it illegal to raise money to buy political ads, and banning the ads during the period when they're most effective, is tantamount to outlawing the message itself. That's a crime against the First Amendment as well as an affront to the democratic process."
Incumbent politicians already enjoy powerful advantages, Neale pointed out, such as name recognition and the ability to attract news media, taxpayer-financed staffs and office space, and the franking privilege.
The so-called campaign finance reform act was merely an attempt to eliminate the only weapon that many challengers have: contributions freely given by individuals or groups that share their views, he noted.
Acknowledging that the stated goal of the legislation was to clean up politics, Neale said: "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out that 'corruption, and in particular the appearance of corruption,' is rampant in Washington -- and of course, she's right.
"But a free-flowing, robust political debate isn't the problem; it's the solution. The only way to dislodge an entrenched, corrupt politician is to allow competing candidates, and anyone else who so chooses, to publicly criticize them and offer voters a better alternative.
"By upholding McCain-Feingold, the Supreme Court has merely guaranteed that corrupt politicians will stay in office for a longer period of time."
In March 1992, the Libertarian Party signed on as a co-plaintiff in McConnell v FEC, the lawsuit spearheaded by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell that sought to overturn the campaign finance reform law.
The party argued that the law would have a devastating impact on its activities by eliminating certain sources of revenue and imposing significant regulatory and administrative burdens.
For example, the law prohibits the organization from accepting donations of more than $25,000 from any individual; prevents it from taking money from organizations that are not "recognized political committees," so it cannot sell ads in its party newspaper to nonprofit corporations or incorporated businesses; and cannot accept funds for memberships or literature from its own state affiliates, unless they also comply with the law's onerous regulations.
However, the party was vindicated by one aspect of Tuesday's ruling, Neale added, when the court struck down the provision of the law banning minors from making contributions to political parties.
Remember, McCain and his democrat buddies controlled the Senate and they were blocking every piece of legislation or adding their CFR to every bill?
McCain was making good on his lofty promise to "his" voters and POTUS needed McCain. The Senate was 50-50 (with VP Cheneny expected to break many ties) then I think either Paul Coverdale from GA died and a dem was appointed, or Jefford's jumped sides. Either way, McCain got his way with a watered-down CFR.
Therefore, the number of SCOTUS Lefties MATTERED!
I do not want a democrat president appointing Day-O'Connor's successor, nor Stevens' nor Renhnquist's. Therefore I will vote a straight GOP ticket as I always have. To vote otherwise, is to only assist in the election of a democrat, and that is damn dangerous and flat-out foolish. In fact, I'll call that voting, anti-military and un-American.
LOL.
None in the past couple of years. I wish I could be more involved in the political process in general although I try to do what I can.
Since some Constitution Party members have won some local races (partisan and non-partisan), that's not necessarily the case.
Wasn't Sandra Day O'Conner appointed by a Republican president? She voted to up-hold this un-Constitutional legislation signed into law by a Republican president. The same Republican president that says he supports the renewel of the ban on so-called "assault weapons". The amazing part is that GWBush even acknowledged that he understood this CFR legislation was un-Constitutional when he signed it. Do you think he just plain forgot about his sworn oath to "Protect and Defend" the Constitution of the United States of America?
I understand that you, Mr. Robinson, served in our armed forces, and took a similar oath. Do we honor our sworn oath by voting for a man that we know has already broken his own oath and disregarded his duty? Do you regard your own sworn oath as lightly as George W. Bush?
I tell all my liberal friends this when the topic of discussion is Iraq. :)
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.