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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
"The court made its ruling effective immediately, barring the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the restrictions it struck down. "

Sounds like someone would have to file for a 'stay' in order for this to NOT go into effect immediately.
101 posted on 05/02/2003 1:14:52 PM PDT by justshe (I'm #6 on the top ten list of lairs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
and can't be used as a stupid campaign issue.

Yeah, they can't say that Bush wouldn't sign it into law...... : )

102 posted on 05/02/2003 1:15:20 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
The one judge who upheld the entire law happened to be a Bill Clinton appointee.

Gee...what a surprise. Goes to show how important those judicial appointments are!!

103 posted on 05/02/2003 1:15:39 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
I disagree that he did the right thing. It is never the right thing to sign an unconstitutional law. But right now it doesn't matter. He got lucky, but it isn't over until the SCOTUS sings. I think we will be okay there.
104 posted on 05/02/2003 1:15:46 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 100 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
it isn't over until the SCOTUS sings. I think we will be okay there.

Of that, really, I'm about 99.99% positive! : )

105 posted on 05/02/2003 1:16:24 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Thank god for the constitution again!
106 posted on 05/02/2003 1:16:45 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Prayers for all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Thank God...
107 posted on 05/02/2003 1:17:19 PM PDT by July 4th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Until we have the opinions, we have no idea what the dissenter dissented on. I think it's most unlikely he would have upheld the whole act.
108 posted on 05/02/2003 1:17:20 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
I agree. The President let us all down by signing an unconstitutional law. His veto would have probably been sustained. Our entire political system has suffered a black eye since our politicians showed they could not give a damn about the Constitution. I'm sure if our Congresscritters thought they could repeal the First Amendment a majority of them probably would vote today to get rid of it.
109 posted on 05/02/2003 1:18:21 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Dog
You see, the left and their RINOenablers wanted to maintain unlimited free speech for Sarandon, Robbins, Garaffalo, Ferrel, et al who could get free media attention because of their "celebrity", but place hard limits on ordinary folks who were forced to pay cash for their "free" speech.
110 posted on 05/02/2003 1:18:36 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: All
link to opinions.
111 posted on 05/02/2003 1:18:53 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
It is never the right thing to sign an unconstitutional law.

Well, in principle I agree but in practical terms, since politicians aren't necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed, how do we know if something is unconstitutional until it is ruled as such. Of course, we all knew it was unconstitutional but the dems and McCain certainly didn't think so. Ergo, a ruling was necessary to settle the issue.

112 posted on 05/02/2003 1:18:55 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
The ruling came from a special three-member, fast-track panel of Appeals Court Judge Karen Henderson, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and District Judge Richard Leon.

The votes were 2-1 so some idiot wanted to uphold it.

Guess who?

Judge Karen Henderson - appointed by G. H. W. Bush

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly - appointed by Clinton

Judge Richard Leon - appointed by G. W. Bush

113 posted on 05/02/2003 1:20:48 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
In a 2-1 vote, the court ruled that political parties can raise corporate and union contributions for general party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration but cannot use it for issue advertising.

So advertising can still only be run using hard money. That largely favors the GOP.

114 posted on 05/02/2003 1:21:24 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
But, but, but...I thought they were just speaking as "average americans!" And poor tim robbins was bemoaning the lack of free speech. Yep, he said it and he even said it on national TV in front of the National Press Club!

These hollywood yahoos are such frickin' idiots, it's nauseating. Don't talk to be about free speech buddy as you're talking away on national TV while I can't even get a letter to the editor printed. AAARRRGHHH!

115 posted on 05/02/2003 1:21:36 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: aristeides; All
another link:

Reform Update:

President Bush's signing of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 is far from the end of the reform story. The coming months will see several court challenges to the new law, as well as efforts by the Federal Election Commission to write the rules that will determine how much of the law works in the real world. Watch this space to keep track of developments on these two fronts.

116 posted on 05/02/2003 1:21:54 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
The sarcasm was directed at the liberal media and NOT you.

Sorry if there was any misunderstanding at all. You just happened to be the guy I hit reply to. Sorry!

I am happy the hard money is doubled through Bushes' strategy, so that hard working middle class people can re elect him!
117 posted on 05/02/2003 1:22:26 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Don't Congresscritters take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? How does passing unConstitutional laws fit into such an oath? For that matter, the President does for sure take such an oath. He should be ashamed for having signed an obviously flawed bill into law.
118 posted on 05/02/2003 1:22:27 PM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jackbill
Hmmm...let me guess. The clinton appointee?
119 posted on 05/02/2003 1:22:33 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
...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?

It took the wedge issue out of McPain's campaign. The neo-com's and media used it to monopolize political reporting (as they do with abortion). Equal time equaled neo-coms ranting about conservatives and abortion then equal time to McPain ranting about contributions.

yitbos

120 posted on 05/02/2003 1:22:37 PM PDT by bruinbirdman (Buy low, sell high)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: justshe
There are going to be quite a few on this forum that just lost one of their 'cornerstone' issues for bashing Bush.

Don't worry; they won't let that stop them.

121 posted on 05/02/2003 1:23:12 PM PDT by alnick ("Never have so many been so wrong about so much." - Rummy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
If you follow that through you would also have to conclude that Bush lied when he said he thought it was a good bill.

He said it was a good bill? I must have missed that part. When did he do that?

122 posted on 05/02/2003 1:23:27 PM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
nope... Judge Henderson
123 posted on 05/02/2003 1:23:28 PM PDT by Krafty123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: 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.)
124 posted on 05/02/2003 1:23:52 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
False choice. Bush did not like bill. He said he hesitated when signed it.

I think he correctly forsaw the outcome and needed to sign this turkey to take away the steam from McLAme.
125 posted on 05/02/2003 1:24:49 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
It's those damned Founding Fathers again. They were just too smart. It's been over two hundred years and they're still outsmarting the likes of John McPain from the grave.
126 posted on 05/02/2003 1:24:54 PM PDT by Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
"The ruling came from a special three-member, fast-track panel of Appeals Court Judge Karen Henderson, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and District Judge Richard Leon.
The votes were 2-1 so some idiot wanted to uphold it. "

My money's on the hyphenated fem-gal as the vote to uphold CFR.
127 posted on 05/02/2003 1:26:42 PM PDT by G L Tirebiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Thank God, someone who gets it. Bush could have vetoed it, pronouncing it unconstitutional, but why allow the Dems to make an issue of it in the first place? Smart politics. VERY smart.
128 posted on 05/02/2003 1:27:04 PM PDT by Trust but Verify
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AriOxman
nope... Judge Henderson

Really? Another Souter, eh?

129 posted on 05/02/2003 1:27:49 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
Worth repeating:

It's those damned Founding Fathers again. They were just too smart. It's been over two hundred years and they're still outsmarting the likes of John McPain from the grave.

130 posted on 05/02/2003 1:27:59 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Trust but Verify
Agreed! This Turkey would never have gone away the dems , mclame and the media were pounding us big time over this one...
131 posted on 05/02/2003 1:29:15 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: AriOxman
Check out post #124. Sounds like she wanted to strike down even more of it. If that's the case, it appears to have been unanimous on the majority of the bill. I take back my Souter remark.
132 posted on 05/02/2003 1:29:33 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Henderson would have struck down almost the entire act. Glancing at the opinions, it looks to me as if the two-judge majority upheld important parts of the act. I think this story may be being misreported.
133 posted on 05/02/2003 1:29:33 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Actually, she may have wanted to strike down the entire thing. We actually can say this was a unanimous ruling against this law, if that is the case. Let's wait until we see the opinions.
134 posted on 05/02/2003 1:29:43 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
The opposite - He (she?) wanted to strike down almost everything.
135 posted on 05/02/2003 1:29:52 PM PDT by Krafty123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
....Hopefully this would put it to bed forever....

This is the most legitimate reason for passing the bill. there are many who railed for some reform and this will putthe weight of the court behind the issue.

People allow " there ought to be a law". We now know for certain the law violates the constitution.

136 posted on 05/02/2003 1:29:56 PM PDT by bert (Don't Panic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
(in case you are wondering, no I did not see this last post of yours before posting my last one...even though the similarity in what was written is uncanny)
137 posted on 05/02/2003 1:31:03 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I haven't read the opinions so I don't know. What important parts of the act are you referring to?
138 posted on 05/02/2003 1:31:19 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
LOL! Great minds, eh?
139 posted on 05/02/2003 1:32:26 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: fooman
No prob. Oh happy day!!!!
140 posted on 05/02/2003 1:33:01 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 117 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Carville is whining about this ruling.....looking very glum.

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

141 posted on 05/02/2003 1:34:16 PM PDT by Dog (Please write your complaint legibly in that box - - - - - - - -->[ ].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
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.
142 posted on 05/02/2003 1:35:22 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
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

143 posted on 05/02/2003 1:37:33 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (strategery in action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
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.
144 posted on 05/02/2003 1:39:28 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
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))...

145 posted on 05/02/2003 1:39:36 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Okay, I'm confused. Are you saying that the reporting on this is wrong then?
146 posted on 05/02/2003 1:39:39 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
LOL! great minds...
147 posted on 05/02/2003 1:40:22 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
YES YES YES!!!!! This is wonderful news!
148 posted on 05/02/2003 1:40:44 PM PDT by justanotherfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith; Petronski; Wphile
Yes, I saw that passage. That's part of what makes me think this story is being misreported.
149 posted on 05/02/2003 1:42:16 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
"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"
150 posted on 05/02/2003 1:42:38 PM PDT by bert (Don't Panic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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