Libertarian Party: Campaign Finance Reform Ruling is Assault on Free Speech

Libertarian Party press release ^ | December 11, 2003 | George Getz

[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.

[dixiechick2000]

"There is a chance of a change in ruling here. The SCOTUS invited more proof of this being against the freedom of speech. I thought they had made all the arguments, but seems the invite to revisit this suggests there is an opening still to do so."

Yes! There was a thread here earlier that said that if anyone could prove harm by this ruling, the USSC would revisit it.

Thank you, A CA guy.

I would love to find the thread, but I'm off to a much deserved dreamland.

Ask onyx about it. ;o)

[Fledermaus]

They are so frightened that some of GWB's circuit court picks will eventually be appointed to the Supreme Court, thereby diluting its current liberal bias, that they are using unprecedented extreme obstructionist methods to block their confirmations.

Want to make the Supreme Court and all of the federal courts more conservative? Vote out the commie-loving rat bastards! Want to leave the godless America hating Democrats on the bench, vote Rat or third party.

---

I agree Jim, but you have to admit that most voters don't even care. All they care about is how someone looks or what soundbite they can put forth.

I don't like to sound negative, but none of this means diddly squat if we don't get the kids out of the indocrination centers called schools.

Most parents don't care any longer. They themselves were the first round of indoctrinated idiots we dealt with in high school and college.

I have two brothers and both have two children, a boy and a girl. I don't have kids and I'm the oldest. One brother is a flaming liberal and his kids are morons. And I truly mean morons. They are spoiled rotten, stupid, disrespectful, whiney and have no social skills at all. They came to visit for 3 days last New Years and were intolerable. The boy never took his headphones off. Not even to drive 1 mile to a restaurant. His parents actually let him bring his PS2 and he spent most of his time playing games. Their daughter is so spoiled she sat in bed whining and wanting attention. I can see them both never leaving home. Their grades are horrible.

My youngest brother just retired from the Air Force after 21 years. His kids are respectful, caring and appreciative of the gifts they have. We don't see any of them enough but when we do they can't spend enough time with us. They say "yes sir" and "thank you" and get good grades and actually care.

Unfortunately, for every family like them, by other brother outnumbers them by 3-1.

So if those brats have to be taxed to death to pay my Soc Sec and Medicare, who am I to argue? LOL

Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest since I got the "list" for the kids for Christmas and, as usual, the brats want everything in the world and the good ones asked for nothing. Instead, they wanted to know if we could come visit because they missed us.

The good kids are getting a $500 air hockey table for the entire family while the brats are getting socks! lol

[nopardons]

Facts matter, the distortion of facts, in order to Bushbash/attack other FREEPERS, is reprehensible. To knowingly, and with malice afore thought, post disengenuous tripe, bellyache always,to never, not ever support President Bush, no matter what he says/does, but to continually hope for him to not be re-elected, is to aid and abet our enemy, the Dems. No president is perfect and no president is going to give anyone or any group even 75% of what they claim to want.

That being said, some things, which presidents do, are done because they politically have to. To do otherwise, would be far worse for them.

Our main goal, as FREEPERS and Conservatives, must be to elect as many GOPers as is humanly possible and get rid of as many Dems, in the doing. Perfection is GOD's alone. One bad Bill( and this was a stinker ), or even a few, shouldn't deter us in our stated mission.

And if you can find the thread, you've mentioned, I'd love to read it.:-)

Pleasant dreams; sleep well.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, that's the whole point. The liberal activist judiciary is causing one heck of a lot of the problems in our society. They're legislating from the bench and there's very little opportunity to veto or even appeal. We are on the verge of being able to reverse this now. But we've got to hold on to the White House and continue building on the Republican majority to do so. And despite the rhetoric from the third party naysayers, I'm confidant we will be able to do so. Sometime during the next term, we'll have a couple vacancies on the Supreme Court. And there may be a huge senate fight, but I believe we will get Bush's conservative nominees confirmed. When the rulings start going 5 to 4 and 6 to 3, etc, against the ACLU and the libs, then we will start making some real progress.

[The_Eaglet]

What a bunch of garbage. You guys are saying that it's okay for the Congress, Bush, and SCOTUS to tear down one of the most fundamental building blocks of this country so long as it helps Bush get re-elected in 2004.

That is beyond frightening.

If they vote for a usurper, they will get what they deserve. I would rather vote to give a proponent of Constitutional fidelity a chance. To vote for someone who violates his oath of office and indicates that he would do so again is to reward good for evil.

"Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house."
- Proverbs 17:13

"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disbelieve, how can we afterwards defend our work? It is our task to raise a standard to which the wise and honest may repair, recognizing that the event is in the hands of God."
– George Washington, 1787.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Do not make the mistake of turning the majority power back over to the Democrats.

Actually, if I could have it my way we'd have a Republican President and a Democrat Congress most of the time. They'd be so busy disagreeing with each other that they wouldn't have enough energy left to screw us over.

And who knows? Without that compromise, we may very well have had President Gore.

So it's okay to tear down the Constitution if it's "our guys" swinging the hammer?

As to excusing the Congress in the matter, where was the fillibuster in the Senate, if the GOP didn't have control? And how did this even get to the floor of the House with Hastert as Speaker? Don't you think the Democrats would take those sorts of steps if they strongly disagreed with a bill?

The long-term answer has to be to not support people in office who do not support the Constitution. If we continue to reward them with our votes as they continue to thumb their noses at us, what will stop them?

[Lurker]

Why don't you just vote out the idiot who signed this bill into Law in the first place?

Oh yea, I forgot. He's a Republican. Therefore he can do no wrong.

But hey, I'll bet he'll appoint some really conservative Supreme Court Judges and they'll fix things.

Yea, right that's the ticket.....

L

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Out of context, I was breathing a sigh of relief because in signing the Bill he successfully neutered the political maelstrom against him.

I was taking it to mean just that. And when I see a politician take the easy way out, and that way tears down one of the pillars of our society, I get a little bit upset about it. And when I see people applaud or defend such an action, it really worries me. If killing off the Constitution piece by piece is what it takes to keep Bush in office so he can accomplish some other things, just how far are you prepared to go? And if he has his people out approving of this SCOTUS decision, which is CLEARLY against the Constitution, doesn't that give you even the slightest bit of concern as to just what sort of people he might nominate to the SCOTUS should a vacancy occur? I am really wondering what he means when he says he wants "strict Constitutionalists" for the higher courts. Aren't you?

You are right that because the SCOTUS made a horrendous decision, President Bush's decision turned out to be a Faustian deal.

That is a total pass for Bush and the Congress. If any of them had any b@lls, the SCOTUS would have never gotten the case. The horrendous decisions were made long before the SCOTUS heard a single argument.

[Jim Robinson]

Please list for me the number of times in our history when we've had a Republican President, a Republican Senate, a Republican House and a Supreme Court that is half full of aging long in the tooth liberals who are sure to retire in the very near future? When we are this close to the possiblity of completely turning over the liberal activist judiciary, I think we'd be nuts, and I mean crazy loco out of our minds NUTZ to pass up the chance. We may never ever have another opportunity like this. Don't blow it.

[Jim Robinson]

No, because then you'd be voting in Dean or Hillary or one of those other communist slimeballs. No thanks. I think I've had all of the Democrat sleaze I can stand for a while.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Electing Republicans is the only possible prevention we have against a democrat president appointing more Lefties to SCOTUS.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if the Republican Congress never passed the bill, and the Republican President never signed it into law, then what would it matter HOW many lefties are on the SCOTUS?

But I totally agree with you about the Yankee Pubbies in the Senate. I'd much rather have Zell Miller or Sam Nunn than any of them (and I'm not even from Georgia).

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I am also disappointed in the court.

You reserve any disappointment for Bush and the Congress?

[The_Eaglet]

Is there a Republican candidate for President that would defend the first Amendment in every action he takes, and not sign bills that violate it?

[Jim Robinson]

Whoopie. We all wish he'd never signed it. But he did. I'm STILL not willing to welcome Dean/Hillary, et al, to take the White House. Or the Senate. Or the House.

[Jim Robinson]

Not one that will be running against Bush next year.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Are you actually going to argue that the best way to save the Constitution is to burn it down?

How far down the road of dismantling the Constitution are you willing to go to ensure that Bush gets re-elected, and gets a fillibsuter- (or even veto-) proof majority in the Senate? Do you really trust them that much.

We were told to support Bush in '00, because of the SCOTUS vacancies that were upcoming. I don't recall him making a single appointment in the last three years. Now that same argument is being made as one of the primary reason for retaining Bush (outside of Dean or whatever Democrat may get the nomination being pure evil), but no one knows what the Supremes are thinking or planning except for them, and they ain't talking.

[Jim Robinson]

Of course not. I doubt they'll burn it down.

I have no idea how far I'm willing to go, but I do know that I'm willing to go for Bush and the Republicans next year. Like I said before, I think this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to turnover the courts. The very worst thing we could do is to turn it back to the Democrcats.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Whoopie. We all wish he'd never signed it. But he did. I'm STILL not willing to welcome Dean/Hillary, et al, to take the White House. Or the Senate. Or the House.

So it's okay for the government to screw us so long as it's "our guys" doing it? What would your reaction have been to all of this if Gore had been the one signing this bill into law after it was passed by a Democrat Congress?

Other than voicing your displeasure, do you intend to do anything to actually hold Bush or the Congress accountable for this attack on the Constitution? If so, what course of action do you recommend?

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Of course not. I doubt they'll burn it down.

What would you call what just happened to the First Amendment, Jim?

I have no idea how far I'm willing to go, but I do know that I'm willing to go for Bush and the Republicans next year.

I am at a loss for words. Truly.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

The leftist media will be running Dim campaign commercials 24/7 right up until the polls close, like they do every day.

The Republican viewpoint on TV will be silenced 60 days before the election.

Bad news.