The Supreme Court Protected Us On Thursday

Fox News ^ | January 22, 2010 | John R. Lott, Jr.

[R4Roger05]

Do you want government regulating what movies can be shown to the public? Do you want the government determining what movies can be advertised? Or what books can be sold? Well, the Obama administration actually argued for these regulations before the Supreme Court in defending campaign finance regulations. Actually, they went even further and said that such regulations were essential to limiting how much money is spent on political campaigns.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed. On Thursday, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down a law that had been used to stop the advertising or showing of "Hillary: The Movie" during the 2008 presidential campaign. No one doubts that the movie was critical of Hillary Clinton and that its release was timed precisely to hurt her presidential campaign. What the court couldn't abide was letting the government decide when a movie crossed the line and became too political. The ruling eliminates bans that corporations and unions have faced in trying to influence elections 30 days before a primary election or nominating convention, or within 60 days before a general election.

Campaign finance laws aim to restrict how much money can be spent on campaigns, but, just as Justice Antonin Scalia warned in 2003, “expenditures” can take an essentially unlimited number of forms. "If history teaches us anything, [it] is that when you plug one means of expression, the money will go to whatever means of expression are left," Scalia warned during oral arguments when the McCain-Feingold law was first heard before the court in 2003.

[Publius6961]

Bookmark

[shield]

HA...dems can no longer shake down corporations...

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

The Supreme Court Protected Us On Thursday

Five members protected us. Four ATTACKED us. And yet they are still sitting there today as if they'd done less than attacked us.

Worse? The five who protected us probably consider it a mere difference of opinion with the other four.

[updatedscreenname]

I would be willing to bet that without McCain-Fiengold
0 wouldn’t have been the dem candidate, and
certainly McCain wouldn’t have been the Republican candidate
Corporations would have put more money on Hillary
and anyone but McCain would have gotten the corptoate dollars on the Republican side.

[VoiceOfBruck]

Can someone please help me understand this? There are only so many things I have the bandwidth to pay attention to, and campaign finance hasn’t been one of them. Since the recent court decision, I’ve been trying to get up to speed on it, but everything I’ve found implicitly assumes that the reader actually knows what it’s about. So can a kind soul please tell me, in broad terms:

What is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and what problem(s) was it supposed to fix?

Why do/did conservatives object to it?

How are we better off now?

I mean, I do understand and support the freedom of speech and censorship side of it, but it seems to me that on the tactical level it’s kind of a wash.
Thanks in advance.

[RoadTest]

Somebody go tell O. Bozo that our government is divided - that’s D-I-V-I-D-E-D - into three parts. He’s only one part of it, and not the dominating part.

[ivyleaguebrat]

I don’t have time to go into detail, maybe I could find some links later if you’re interested.

The basic debate is as follows:

Each of us is endowed with a right to free speech which is guaranteed in the Constitution;

That freedom includes the right to advocate politically to influence election outcomes;

Since in our system “speech” generally means campaigning, and since campaigning costs money, it is generally accepted that giving money to a candidate or political group is considered a FORM of speech;

This creates a situation where wealthy people and groups are able to exert more influence than less-wealthy groups and people;

Democrats say this is unjust because it disenfranchises the less-well-off;

Republicans say this is just because if one were to restrict political donations, one one would restricting the quantity of a person’s speech, which is unconstitutional;

There are, of course more cynical ways of looking at both arguments.

McCain-Feingold sought to limit the influence of wealthy individuals and groups on elections. The liberal/conservative debate above explains their positions on McCain-Feingold specifically.

[wastedyears]

and anyone but McCain would have gotten the corptoate dollars on the Republican side.

Then the nominee would have been Huckabee, Romney or Giuliani. No thanks

[wastedyears]

Speech should never, ever be censored.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[VoiceOfBruck]

Tnx VM