Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 05/02/2003 12:41:01 PM PDT by RandDisciple

reported 15:38 bloomberg news


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bcra; campaignfinance; cfr; cfrlist; constitutionallaw; electionlaw; fec; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; mccain; mccainfeingold; mcconnell; misunderestimating; nra; silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last

1 posted on 05/02/2003 12:41:01 PM PDT by RandDisciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Which part?
2 posted on 05/02/2003 12:41:36 PM PDT by krb (the statement on the other side of this tagline is false)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: krb
Bet it's that waiting period.
3 posted on 05/02/2003 12:42:14 PM PDT by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
bet it's the 60/90 ban....totally unconstitutional
4 posted on 05/02/2003 12:43:06 PM PDT by The Wizard (Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: krb
I hope the part regarding not being able to have commerials 60 days prior to a general election. That is such an abridgement of freedom of speech, I could hardly believe it was signed by the President.
5 posted on 05/02/2003 12:43:13 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mware
Yup. I think McInsane and his media buddies are having a raging fit over this ruling. Too bad they can't read the First Amendment.
6 posted on 05/02/2003 12:44:49 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Post source or link to it, please.

-=I=-
7 posted on 05/02/2003 12:44:52 PM PDT by =Intervention= (Proud Christo-het Supremacist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: krb
Which part?

The written one? :-)

8 posted on 05/02/2003 12:45:07 PM PDT by TonyInOhio ("Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Was there ever any doubt????
9 posted on 05/02/2003 12:45:58 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Hopefully this "part" includes all 100%.
10 posted on 05/02/2003 12:47:03 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
I think when they passed the bill they knew it would not hold muster under the Constitution. That is why they added that bit, that says if one part of the bill is unconstitutional they do not throw out the whole law.
11 posted on 05/02/2003 12:47:05 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Wizard
Agreed..
12 posted on 05/02/2003 12:47:19 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Sammy to Frodo: "Get out. Go sleep with one of your whores!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mware
try doing that to a partial birth abortion ban bill however...
13 posted on 05/02/2003 12:47:41 PM PDT by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Oh YEAH!
14 posted on 05/02/2003 12:48:34 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
What court??
15 posted on 05/02/2003 12:48:35 PM PDT by Dog (Please write your complaint legibly in that box - - - - - - - -->[ ].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
ping
16 posted on 05/02/2003 12:48:59 PM PDT by kayak (Pray for President Bush, our troops, and our nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Ping!
17 posted on 05/02/2003 12:49:49 PM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Wizard
bet it's the 60/90 ban....totally unconstitutional

That's what I meant. I agree it's totally unconstitutional. How could anything that disallows a citizen the right to speak out against a politician anytime be legal?

18 posted on 05/02/2003 12:49:53 PM PDT by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mware
That is why they added that bit, that says if one part of the bill is unconstitutional they do not throw out the whole law.

I think there's some question whether that part itself is constitutional.

19 posted on 05/02/2003 12:50:03 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kayak
LOL - we're thinking alike.
20 posted on 05/02/2003 12:50:11 PM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Oh hooray, there is hope for the world after all! If we lose our right to express political views (in a back door way by eliminating resources to do it with) it is all over.
21 posted on 05/02/2003 12:52:16 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Great minds and all that stuff ...... :-)
22 posted on 05/02/2003 12:52:46 PM PDT by kayak (Pray for President Bush, our troops, and our nation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Hannity just said it was the ban on soft money part. I think that's what he said.
23 posted on 05/02/2003 12:54:06 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
That is why they added that bit, that says if one part of the bill is unconstitutional they do not throw out the whole law.

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

24 posted on 05/02/2003 12:55:27 PM PDT by Howlin (The most hated lair on FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wphile

So, the dem's are now unhindered again in this area?

Is that what this means?

25 posted on 05/02/2003 12:55:52 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Sammy to Frodo: "Get out. Go sleep with one of your whores!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
So the 60/90 day thing they left standing?
26 posted on 05/02/2003 12:55:58 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Yup. The part McInsane and the liberals tried so hard to get rid of. The blob is free. The hard money limits remain intact. Its a gloomy day for the other side. The mountain labored and produced - *POOF*
27 posted on 05/02/2003 12:56:08 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: krb
Bloomberg News: "The judges invalidated part of a ban on unlimited "soft money" donations to political parties from companies, labor unions and wealthy individuals. The Court also struck down a ban on direct contributions by children."
28 posted on 05/02/2003 12:56:14 PM PDT by RandDisciple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Hannity just said it was the ban on soft money part.

What???

Well, prepare for another lawsuit then......LOL....the time limit is DEFINITELY unconstitutional.

29 posted on 05/02/2003 12:56:17 PM PDT by Howlin (The most hated lair on FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Hannity just said it was the ban on soft money part. I think that's what he said.

Dang. Just in the nick of time for Dems.

30 posted on 05/02/2003 12:56:31 PM PDT by vollmond (The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the Democrat Nine that day ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Read #23.

?

31 posted on 05/02/2003 12:56:35 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Sammy to Frodo: "Get out. Go sleep with one of your whores!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
I don't know. No details at this point but I thought he said something about the ban on soft money. Will have to wait for the details to come in...
32 posted on 05/02/2003 12:56:51 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
I saw that......hmmmm.
33 posted on 05/02/2003 12:57:11 PM PDT by Howlin (The most hated lair on FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
That was struck down I believe, if it wasn't it will be on appeal. No way that part of the law survived.
34 posted on 05/02/2003 12:57:12 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Teaser is now up on Drudge
35 posted on 05/02/2003 12:57:47 PM PDT by TheConservator (Homines libenter quod volunt credunt--Julius Caesar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
not to worry, ther 60/90 ban will fall as will much of this foolish asshole bill
36 posted on 05/02/2003 12:57:50 PM PDT by The Wizard (Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Hang on a minute if I recall from the CPAC conference, it was the NRA that filed a suit against that law.
37 posted on 05/02/2003 12:58:16 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Don't know. Maybe they are ruling on one part at a time. I'm sure the 60/90 thing will go too but perhaps they are just tackling the soft money part at this point.
38 posted on 05/02/2003 12:58:22 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
HOORAY!!!
39 posted on 05/02/2003 12:58:46 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
Worked for Saddam!
40 posted on 05/02/2003 12:58:53 PM PDT by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mware
Mark Levin's outfit was involved in one of the lawsuits against it too.
41 posted on 05/02/2003 12:59:04 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple

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.

42 posted on 05/02/2003 12:59:11 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Yup. You can't ban legitimate contributions even from children. It had no legitimate purpose related to the government's interest in preventing corruption during political campaigns. I mean our senators knew the entire time what they voted for was flatly unconstitutional. It doesn't say much for their respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, now does it?
43 posted on 05/02/2003 12:59:56 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
So what's left?
44 posted on 05/02/2003 12:59:58 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: The Wizard
I've never been worried about it being knocked out of court; I'm just surprised this part fell first.
45 posted on 05/02/2003 1:00:10 PM PDT by Howlin (The most hated lair on FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!! :)
46 posted on 05/02/2003 1:00:37 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
AP News Alert

The Associated Press
Friday, May 2, 2003; 3:37 PM

WASHINGTON - Federal court declares part of campaign finance law's soft money ban unconstitutional.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6289-2003May2.html

47 posted on 05/02/2003 1:00:48 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; sweetliberty; TheLion; Budge; Mudboy Slim; Mo1; Brad's Gramma
Did you all see this???? Hoowee!
48 posted on 05/02/2003 1:01:05 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
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.

Ooo...that's the 60/90 attrocity. YES!!!!! The Constitution lives (but not in the way the liberals mean it..).

49 posted on 05/02/2003 1:01:24 PM PDT by RAT Patrol (Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
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.

Okay looks like both the ban on soft money AND the 60/90 day timing of political speech! HAPPY DAY!

50 posted on 05/02/2003 1:01:24 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson