Posted on 08/29/2007 3:03:46 PM PDT by neverdem
The Supreme Court rocked the 2008 presidential race by upsetting, in late June, a provision of the McCain-Feingold speech-regulation law that banned any radio or TV ad mentioning the name of a candidate for federal office in the 30 days before a primary election and the 60 days before a general election. In particular, the case at hand — FEC vs. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. — dealt with so-called "sham" issue ads. These ads lobby federal officeholders to vote one way or the other on issues before them; however, such ads were banned on the grounds that...
--snip--
The FEC faces a number of questions: Can these newly deregulated ads lobby individuals who do not yet hold federal office (e.g. "Call Mitt Romney and ask him to pledge not to raise taxes")? What's the line between an issue ad and an ad that calls on people to vote for or against a specific candidate? Do groups running issue ads have to disclose their donors to the FEC as if they were engaging in election-related activity? Clearly the Supreme Court was urging that the maximum latitude possible be given to groups engaged in grassroots lobbying — such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, pro-life groups, pro-abortion groups, and all of the myriad interests who might wish to speak in our political process. As Mr. Roberts wrote, "A court should find that an ad is the functional equivalent of express advocacy only if the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate." A restoration of the First Amendment will require the repeal of most of our existing campaign-finance laws. The FEC can move in the right direction by giving citizens the benefit of the doubt.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
I’m glad the SC is in favor of “maximum latitude possible”. But this is not a controversial issue. The first amendment says the ads can say whatever we want.
Does a bear squat in the woods?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The distinction is necessary because there is no first amendment right to advocate for the election or defeat of a particular candidate in the 60 days before an election. Under the first amendment, you can only advocate that a candidate should be for or against a particular proposition or issue (although most believers in CFR do not recoginize this right either). Under the first amendment, only newspapers and TV networks can express opinions regarding the merits of candidates in the election run-up.
You "are" being sarcastic, right???
So be it! And the sooner the better!
“You “are” being sarcastic, right???”
I hope so, for a minute there I thought that I was on McCain’s website.
Sort of, but not really.
The very first thing the drafters of the Bill of Rights set forth was that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Obviously, political speech was foremost in their minds. Just as obviously, supporting or opposing political candidates is political speech in its purest form.
Yet, in passing CFR, Congress made a law which restricts pure political speech in a very substantial fashion. The President signed the law and the Supreme Court upheld most of it. In effect, the First Amendment was amended so as to place the media and billionaires on a different plane from ordinary citizens who wish to join with like-minded individuals for the purpose of advocating particular political positions. Somehow, the right to free speech is now different 61 days before an election than it is 59 days before an election. Personally, I can't reconcile that condition to the First Amendment, but I must not be as smart as political incumbents or Supreme Court Justices.
Since what I wrote earlier is almost literally true, it really can't be classified as sarcasm.
Correction, the dimwitted Sandra Day O'Connor and the liberals on the court upheld the clearly unconstitutional Incumbent Protection Act, which, hopefully, a more constitutionally-minded court will soon overturn.
We can indeed hope for that. Which brings to mind this: Think how many issues—covering the next 25 years — will be decided in the next presidential election, given the next President will probably appoint 2 more justices, maybe 3.
Yup, and we need to work as hard as we can to make sure constitution trampling liberals like Hillary or Giuliani, et al, do not get elected to the presidency. We must nominate and elect a conservative.
The Congress passing a law; the President signing that law; and, the Supremes declaring it “constitutional” does NOT make it constitutional. I understand that some time ago the Supremes, in a typical self-serving way, declared that they, and they alone, pass on the constitutionality of legislation — but, that doesn’t make it so.
This legislation is clearly unconstitutional and the Supreme could argue otherwise until the end of time, but that won’t change the simple fact of the matter.
Yeah, but you need to distinguish between the First Amendment as originally written and intended, and that as bastardized by the politicians (and I include the damned Supreme Court judges in that category).
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.