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

[RandDisciple]

reported 15:38 bloomberg news

[Mo1]

OMG .. LOL!

[GraniteStateConservative]

It's dead, just like the Line Item Veto. Remember how we used to run campaigns on that? Then SCOTUS struck it down once it was enacted and you never hear about it again. The same just happened to CFR for the Dems. It's a great day.

[Wphile]

It's a great day.

Indeed it is!

[GraniteStateConservative]

You are making the argument for sending this to the SCOTUS. That judge you talk of is a Clinton judge. The economy could suck next year and Kerry could fill 2-4 seats on the SCOTUS. I'd rather the Rehnquist court kill this than have a Kerry-appointed court uphold it. Everything is politics-- even the courts-- and so we have to use strategy to get done what we want to get done.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Yep, this bill has been around for about a decade and campaigns have been run on it for that long. No more!

[GraniteStateConservative]

Did you think Clinton should have signed the line item veto we sent even though we knew it was unconstitutional when we voted for it and sent it to his desk?

[GraniteStateConservative]

Every Republican senator voted for the unconstitutional Line Item Veto except Jeffords, Cohen and Hatfield. Every House Republican except Chenoweth, Myers, and Shuster voted for it.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I'm in the process of changing my tune about this one. Folks are making some very good arguments about why this is another big win for Bush. However, was a line-item veto seen a priori as being clearly unConstitutional? I don't think so. It certainly wasn't an assault on individual liberties. On the other hand, the flagrant restrictions of free speech in M-F are fairly obviously unConstitutional infringements on our rights from the perspective of any thinking individual who holds the Constitution dearly.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Except for amending the constitution, it was quite evident that it wasn't constitutional. It's a separation of powers issue-- in the Articles and not the amendments. We supported it because it made good policy and we didn't care about its constitutionality. Just like the Dems and gun control and CFR. They approve of the effects of the law and don't care about whether it's actually "legal."

[MeekOneGOP]

Did you all see this???? Hoowee!

Alright ! Thanks ! :O)

From post #42 (thanks, OEB!!) . . .

Federal court strikes down two cornerstones of new campaign finance law
SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer
Friday, May 2, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/02/national1558EDT0688.DTL

(05-02) 12:58 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal court Friday struck down most of a ban on the use of large corporate and union political contributions by political parties, casting into doubt the future of the campaign finance law that was supposed to govern next year's high-stakes presidential election.

The court also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. It barred the federal government from enforcing them and all other parts of the law it struck down.

The ruling clears the way for an immediate appeal by the losing parties to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court's decision will lay the ground rules for the 2004 presidential election and beyond.

[browardchad]

Ignorant journalists and politicians, like McCain and Feingold, were going to continue use this issue primarily against Republicans in the future.

I just read the Washington Post article on the decision, and not once do the words "First Amendment" appear, while it appears hundreds of times in the opinion.

Interesting how the media selectively champions free speech.

[NYC Republican]

I'm not so sure it's a help to us... I think the Dems may benefit much more from the lifting of the ban...

[browardchad]

will McCain finally shut up?

Probably not -- but you have to love this judge's opinion.

For example:

 

"While BCRA's sponsors may have intended the ban to be a first step only, see,  e.g., Press Release, Senator John McCain, McCain Declares Reform Crusade Continues (November 14, 2002) ("Reform is a process. It is not a one-time fight."), available at http://mccain.senate.gov/, its negligible utility in battling corruption or its appearance cannot justify the statute's ham-handed regulation of core First Amendment activity."

Captain Queeg must be grinding his teeth tonight.

[Howlin]

I agree.....I felt like this would happen, but it was RISKY.....RISKY........RISKY.........

But *WHEW*

[supercat]

Except for amending the constitution, it was quite evident that it [line-item veto] wasn't constitutional. It's a separation of powers issue-- in the Articles and not the amendments.

Is the line-item veto any worse of a delegation of Congress' powers than the many statutes which create regulatory agencies with rule-making authority?

BTW, what I would like to see as a 'line-item' veto facility would be that when a bill reaches the President he would have the right to veto it, redacting whatever parts he deemed appropriate, and then have the bill go to both houses of Congress for an up/down vote either immediately or immediately after they try for a veto-override.

[supercat]

Anyone who passes or enforces an unconstitutional law should be stripped of their office.

First of all, I'm not sure if Bush ever made any effort to enforce this piece of garbage [nb: there is no such thing as an unconstitutional "law"; there are unconstitutional statutes, acts, regulations, and ordinances, but they are not laws]. So we turn to the question of whether he should have passed it.

I think there are sound arguments to be made both ways, actually. Bush probably signed it with pretty solid knowledge that the evil parts would be struck down. The question is whether the Constitution is better served by passing and signing garbage lesilation which gets struck down, or having such legislation hang around until the judicial climate is 'right'. Bush probably decided that the only way to kill this thing for good was to have it get passed, signed, and struck down.

Of course, he should be aware that such garbage never dies, even when struck down. The "Gun Free School Zones" act was struck down in Lopez, but that didn't stop Congress from passing it again by a 97-2 margin, nor the House (though not by quite so big a margin); nor did it stop Clinton from signing it.

[firebrand]

Watch for the predictable lamentations in the New York Times editorial that is being written right now.

[randita]

Watch for the predictable lamentations in the New York Times editorial that is being written right now.

You are right. The biggest loser in all this is the press. They were salivating at the prospect of having 60-90 days before an election to publish anything they wanted bashing conservatives and lauding liberals, knowing it could not be responded to. They will hate this. You can bet they will label the 2 judges who voted to overturn as Republican lackeys, while ignoring the fact that the lone dissenter, a Clinton appointee, wanted to whole thing thrown out.

[Wait4Truth]

Actually, I believe the dissenter was Karen Henderson, a Bush 41 appointee. She wanted to throw the whole thing out. The other two, one by clinton and one by GWB, were in the majority.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Nearly five months after the McCain-Feingold law was argued before the panel, most of the soft money prohibitions were declared to be unconstitutional by a 2-1 majority, possibly clearing the way for major political parties to begin raising the large, unregulated sums of money from corporations, trade unions and wealthy individuals that critics said had plagued major election campaigns during the past two decades.

That decision, like the other parts of the new law declared to be unconstitutional, is effective immediately, the panel ruled.

Barring a stay from the Supreme Court, that means campaign fundraising will enter a confusing standard of regulations, as political parties and interest groups raise funds regulated by a set of laws that may change again when the Supreme Court rules, lawyers in the case said today.

The panel also voted 2-1 to strike down the ban on most "issue ads," or thinly veiled political ads, that corporations, unions, interest groups and individuals can run on radio or television in the run-up to elections. But the court allowed the ban on a secondary definition of the ads to be enforced in more limited situations.

Is'nt the Constitution a WONDERFUL THING God Bless America

Next the libbys are gonna go after talk radio and anything remotly truth bearing.

Stay Vigil