U.S. Court strikes down part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Law

[RandDisciple]

reported 15:38 bloomberg news

[Dog]

Carville is whining about this ruling.....looking very glum.

It's a good ruling...:-)

[aristeides]

Well, Leon said he thought the defendants had established the constitutionality of: (1) restrictions on the use of soft money donations by national, state, and local parties to fund certain types of campaign communications (particularly candidate-advocacy "issue" advertisements) and (2) restrictions on the airing of corporate and union electioneering communications which promote, oppose, attack, or support specific candidates for office. I suspect we're going to find out these provisions were also upheld by the other judge in the majority.

[NeoCaveman]

I mean, what provisions of the bill have survived?

Raising hard money limit from 1,000 to 2,000 per person. Advantage GOP.

Looks like the one reason thing Bush could like about this bill is all that's left of it

[Petronski]

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part: I believe the statute before us is unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars; it breaks faith with the fundamental principle—understood by our nation’s Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court—that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). My colleagues’ per curiam opinion and their other opinions ignore the statute’s transparent infirmity and leave standing its most pernicious provisions, apparently on the ground that candidatefocused political speech inevitably “corrupts” the individuals to whom it refers. Their reasoning and conclusions treat a First Amendment with which I am not familiar.

[mrsmith]

God bless her.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part:
I believe the statute before us is unconstitutional in virtually all of its particulars; it breaks faith with the fundamental principle—understood by our nation’s Founding Generation, inscribed in the First Amendment and repeatedly reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court—that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964).
My colleagues’ per curiam opinion and their other opinions ignore the statute’s transparent infirmity and leave standing its most pernicious provisions, apparently on the ground that candidate focused political speech inevitably “corrupts” the individuals to whom it refers.
Their reasoning and conclusions treat a First Amendment with which I am not familiar. See Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 349 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“[T]he prospect that voters might be persuaded by . . . endorsements is not a corruption of the democratic political process; it is the democratic political process.” (emphasis in original))...

[Wphile]

Okay, I'm confused. Are you saying that the reporting on this is wrong then?

[mrsmith]

LOL! great minds...

[justanotherfreeper]

YES YES YES!!!!! This is wonderful news!

[aristeides]

Yes, I saw that passage. That's part of what makes me think this story is being misreported.

[bert]

"Come out and vote for your favorite candidate and insure your medicare and social security doesn't get cut to the bone. Get out the vote to save your life from poverty"

[justanotherfreeper]

THANK YOU for the link! I know what I'll be doing tonight!

[Petronski]

LOL. (Just don't forget who won that race.) ;o)

[Wphile]

...and leave standing its most pernicious provisions, apparently on the ground that candidate focused political speech inevitably “corrupts” the individuals to whom it refers.

Well, she's right here. I always thought the whole debate was so stupid because if the politicians were really honest about it, the reason for this bill was because politicians are corrupt. I always said, ok, then, who's corrupt? Who's the culprit here? Out with it McCain! Sheesh...just because someone receives money or has an ad aired on their behalf doesn't make them corrupt but according to McCain and this bill, it does.

[Mo1]

And from what I've read, the "part" that would be left if this is upheld, totally favors the GOP.

I guess this means the sky isn't falling after all huh?

[Wphile]

I haven't read the opinions but perhaps she is just trying to say that the whole premise for the bill is wrong. That the purpose of political speech is to support a candidate and that denying the mention of a candidate's name in an RNC ad say is unconstitutional. So, for the pernicious part perhaps she was talking about the provision that only allows soft money for GOTV and party building but not political ads.

[Petronski]

I gave it a quick read (300+pages) and as far as I can tell, the only dissent was an expression of a desire to throw out the whole damnable thing.

[nicmarlo]

for the pernicious part perhaps she was talking about the provision that only allows soft money for GOTV and party building but not political ads.

I have no doubt that the Congressman will be adding to this discussion and can add some clarity here. He has already been pinged by a FReeper.....

[jackbill]

Henderson was the dissenter. She would have struck down more of the act than the other two. (And her opinion may in the end win out at the SCOTUS level.)

Yes, I noticed that. I went to the "opinion" link and tried to read some of it but it's so damned complicated. Judge Henderson's memo just about said it all on the first page. She believes that the law is unconstitutional in virtually every aspect. (She probably would agree that the doubling of the hard money was OK)

She also seemed to be chiding the other judges for dragging their feet and making the case more complicated than it should have been.

The law was set up for this "fast track" three judge court and then the Supremes. With today's result, I wonder if any of the defendants will bother?

[Wphile]

Yes, I'm looking forward to CBB's comments.

[Wphile]

I bet her opinion is that using one's own money is free speech and shouldn't be restricted in any way. Also the use of money contributed shouldn't be limited or restricted to only certain activities. That's my guess and I agree with her but I'll take this ruling anyway.