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: aristeides
THANK YOU for the link! I know what I'll be doing tonight!
151 posted on 05/02/2003 1:43:00 PM PDT by justanotherfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
LOL. (Just don't forget who won that race.) ;o)
152 posted on 05/02/2003 1:43:13 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
...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.

153 posted on 05/02/2003 1:43:30 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
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?

154 posted on 05/02/2003 1:44:46 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
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.
155 posted on 05/02/2003 1:46:16 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
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.
156 posted on 05/02/2003 1:47:33 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Wphile; aristeides; Congressman Billybob
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.....

157 posted on 05/02/2003 1:48:22 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
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?

158 posted on 05/02/2003 1:49:39 PM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Yes, I'm looking forward to CBB's comments.
159 posted on 05/02/2003 1:50:17 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: jackbill
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.
160 posted on 05/02/2003 1:52:03 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Well it was a stupid law IMO
161 posted on 05/02/2003 1:52:16 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
"Ergo, a ruling was necessary to settle the issue. "

And shut McCain up for awhile.
162 posted on 05/02/2003 1:53:56 PM PDT by justshe (I'm #6 on the top ten list of lairs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
It was a stupid law and I think Bush signed it knowing the courts would knock it down. At least by having it go to the courts, we have a ruling on the constitutionality of the law.

That would be my guess .. only question is .. will McCain finally shut up?

163 posted on 05/02/2003 1:55:25 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | 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.
164 posted on 05/02/2003 1:55:57 PM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
...will McCain finally shut up?

I doubt it.

165 posted on 05/02/2003 1:56:52 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Judge Scalia????

166 posted on 05/02/2003 1:57:08 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
The First Amendment says Congress shall make NO laws. In my opinion the entire statute IS on its face unconstitutional. I'm not sure about the other jurists' reasoning and conclusions either. Its plain as mud they aren't reading the same Constitution the rest of us are.
167 posted on 05/02/2003 1:58:01 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: alnick
~~~Don't worry; they won't let that stop them.~~~

No kidding!

Obfuscate/fabricate/adulterate/obliterate
168 posted on 05/02/2003 1:58:11 PM PDT by justshe (I'm #6 on the top ten list of lairs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
True ... but it will be fun to rub this one in his face ..
169 posted on 05/02/2003 1:59:50 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
A radio report today siad it had to do with the amount of money a party could spend on a campaign.
170 posted on 05/02/2003 2:01:44 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus (ax accountant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher; dittomom
fyi...
171 posted on 05/02/2003 2:04:01 PM PDT by Dog (Please write your complaint legibly in that box - - - - - - - -->[ ].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
HOT DAMN! Good news!

(should never have come to this though...but I'll take it)

172 posted on 05/02/2003 2:04:33 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
If Henderson wanted to strike down more, she would have issued a concurring opinion in part, and a dissenting opinion in part. Media is obviously either clueless or lying, as usual.
173 posted on 05/02/2003 2:07:06 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
That was MY reading too. The dissent was to throw out the entire bill.
174 posted on 05/02/2003 2:07:45 PM PDT by justshe (I'm #6 on the top ten list of lairs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
McCain? Shut up? In our dreams! LOL!


"C-C-C-C-Campaign Finance Re-re-reform"

175 posted on 05/02/2003 2:10:54 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
If Henderson wanted to strike down more, she would have issued a concurring opinion in part, and a dissenting opinion in part.

That's precisely what she did issue. KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

176 posted on 05/02/2003 2:13:14 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Henderson now a possibility for the US Supreme Court in my opinion. What, the RATS are going to oppose a woman circuit judge from the distinguished DC circuit?
177 posted on 05/02/2003 2:13:53 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Yes, but the media is spinning this as a 2-1 decision, not a unanimous decision. They are scheming liars.
178 posted on 05/02/2003 2:14:37 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Wellstone's legacy was that election-eve advertising ban. Poof, it goes away.
179 posted on 05/02/2003 2:18:29 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: mware
The $2K limit is great. There should be no limit at all, just full disclosure as Bush has said.
180 posted on 05/02/2003 2:19:19 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
OMG .. LOL!
181 posted on 05/02/2003 2:20:02 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
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.
182 posted on 05/02/2003 2:20:41 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
It's a great day.

Indeed it is!

183 posted on 05/02/2003 2:22:53 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
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.
184 posted on 05/02/2003 2:23:18 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: rockinonritalin
Yep, this bill has been around for about a decade and campaigns have been run on it for that long. No more!
185 posted on 05/02/2003 2:24:06 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
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?
186 posted on 05/02/2003 2:25:16 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
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.
187 posted on 05/02/2003 2:38:17 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
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.
188 posted on 05/02/2003 2:43:22 PM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
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."
189 posted on 05/02/2003 2:47:33 PM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo; Oldeconomybuyer; sweetliberty; TheLion; Budge; Mudboy Slim; Mo1; Brad's Gramma
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.


190 posted on 05/02/2003 2:47:46 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: rockinonritalin
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.

191 posted on 05/02/2003 3:13:28 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
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...
192 posted on 05/02/2003 3:13:58 PM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
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.

193 posted on 05/02/2003 3:18:09 PM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

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

But *WHEW*
194 posted on 05/02/2003 3:18:28 PM PDT by Howlin (The most hated lair on FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
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.

195 posted on 05/02/2003 3:21:26 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
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.

196 posted on 05/02/2003 3:27:52 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Watch for the predictable lamentations in the New York Times editorial that is being written right now.
197 posted on 05/02/2003 3:35:38 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
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.

198 posted on 05/02/2003 3:47:12 PM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: randita
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.
199 posted on 05/02/2003 4:19:06 PM PDT by Wait4Truth (God Bless our President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
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

200 posted on 05/02/2003 4:21:56 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK (("He is a moss-gatherer, and I have been a stone doomed to rolling." Gandalf))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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