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 last
To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
I am grateful everyday for President Bush, but I was VERY disappointed in him when he signed CFR. The Education Bill and the Farm Bill were bad enough, but CFR is unconstitutional..NO Question!! What was worse, he KNEW it was unconstitutional and conservatives were upset but never bothered to give us the explanation of why he signed it that Ari Fleisher promised during a press conference.
201 posted on 05/02/2003 6:47:03 PM PDT by ncweaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
There was also that stupid millionaire's provision. Don't know what happened with that.

It was found to be non-justiciable, so it remains in force.

202 posted on 05/02/2003 7:07:14 PM PDT by Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
This was fully expected by everyone with a pulse and a functioning brain.

I would like to see the Ba$tards who sponsored this (i.e., McLame & Feingold) and those that voted for it to be billed for all the leagl expenses caused by this Un-constitutional piece of legislation!
203 posted on 05/02/2003 7:11:53 PM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

For those on this forum who blasted Pres. Bush for not speaking out against this ridiculous bill, this decision is the reason why.

He knew it from the beginning and now President Bush has been vindicated! Truly brilliant!

204 posted on 05/02/2003 7:18:48 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (Nothing worse than an angry herd of hungry finches....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Can anybody move for a stay of that order until the Supreme Court rules?

The court has not granted a stay, according to electionlaw.blogspot.com, although it could still do so in response to a motion from one of the parties.

205 posted on 05/02/2003 8:06:55 PM PDT by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
So, who's the one that voted for both provisions? A clinton appointee no doubt.

The opinions run to almost 1,600 pages total. This is completely unprecedented. It's also a sign that the judges agreed on very little about what parts of the law were valid and what were not. And even when they do agree, they usually do so for different reasons, which explains the number and length of the multiple opinions.

It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort the mess out, but I expect it will also produce multiple, conflicting opinions. We'll see.

206 posted on 05/02/2003 8:12:24 PM PDT by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
I'd like to know what court this comes from

It was a special, three judge panel created just for this case by the Bipartisan [sic] Campaign Reform Act (although the particular judges were chosen by random computer selection) BCRA also provides for direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

207 posted on 05/02/2003 8:15:39 PM PDT by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: justshe; Oldeconomybuyer
Sounds like someone would have to file for a 'stay' in order for this to NOT go into effect immediately.

Correct.

208 posted on 05/02/2003 8:17:58 PM PDT by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: ncweaver
You and I are probably singing in the same choir. I'll give Bush credit for infinitely more political savvy than what I have. He is a great leader, of that there's no doubt. I'd love for him to be more conservative, but I have to assume the mans got access to information I don't and there's no doubt he makes decisions very wisely.
209 posted on 05/02/2003 8:21:13 PM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: All
A good (although not conservative) source for ongoing coverage and commentary is the Election Law blog at:

http://electionlaw.blogspot.com/

210 posted on 05/02/2003 8:25:51 PM PDT by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: All
It was a set of interlocking and contradictory opinions so complex that two of the three federal judges who ruled in the campaign finance case tried to summarize the panel's 20 main holdings in a four-page spreadsheet. The chart itself was nearly incomprehensible.

This is the first paragraph in an excellent legal analysis of the case, at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/03/politics/03ASSE.html

211 posted on 05/02/2003 8:37:56 PM PDT by Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Law
Thank you for the link you provided to that election law blog. The more I dig into this and the more I read, the less it looks like a victory for the good guys. I think we need to wait and see what it looks like when the dust has settled and people have had a chance to really read this monstrosity.
212 posted on 05/02/2003 9:42:38 PM PDT by Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing; nicmarlo
Saw it, but late getting here.

Thsnks to both of you!

213 posted on 05/03/2003 7:29:29 AM PDT by Budge (God Bless FReepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco
For those on this forum who blasted Pres. Bush for not speaking out against this ridiculous bill, this decision is the reason why.

He knew it from the beginning and now President Bush has been vindicated! Truly brilliant!

Exactlly! Add to that, Dubya removed a "talking point" that the DemocRATS would surly have used against him.

Can't you hear them? "Bush vetoed this fine bill that would have ended corruption!"

Or, "Bush refused to sign this excellent bill..." see above.

Add to both, "A 'Democratic' president, John 'Fitzgerald' Kerry would sign this fine bill to end corruption forever..."

214 posted on 05/03/2003 10:24:12 AM PDT by Budge (God Bless FReepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Thank God for the system in place to uphold the Constitution.
215 posted on 05/03/2003 5:29:47 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ("Palm Pilot, a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Budge
Is it me, or are a whole bunch of FReepers still misunderestimating Bush?
216 posted on 05/03/2003 5:31:52 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ("Palm Pilot, a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Now, continuing the conversation we were having a few months ago, I would like to once again state my position on this Bill.

It will be challenged in the Court system, and the unconstitutional parts struck down, leaving the Democrats with no negative talking point, and McCain with the dubius distinction to having fought for, and achieved the passage of bill that was found to violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But that's just my layman's guess.

Oh!

Wait...!

217 posted on 05/03/2003 5:36:15 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ("Palm Pilot, a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
"...but I have to assume the mans got access to information I don't..."

One of you lives here, and the other does not.

I'm betting that the one whose tootbrush is hanging in of those bathrooms, has better info sources.


218 posted on 05/03/2003 5:45:57 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez ("Palm Pilot, a nickname boys used to get when they reached puberty"---Dennis Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I don't live there.
219 posted on 05/03/2003 6:03:52 PM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Budge
Excellent points!
220 posted on 05/03/2003 8:35:01 PM PDT by octobersky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Okay, from what I've read about the court ruling, it actually makes CFR worse than it was. For example, although it allows issue ads, they are all forbidden from mentioning a candidates name ever. This applies throughout the entire year! What the f*ck is the point of an ad if you can't point out where the congressperson stands on the particular issued. This is a travesty. And not only that, there is a federal crime involved if you mistakenly aired the wrong ad. This gives complete control to the media - not to mention the lawyers as this is bound to spur lawsuit after lawsuit. Absolute pathetic.

I now side with those that place the blame on W for signing it. He gambled on the courts, and I thought for sure the courts would do the right thing (silly me!), but they failed. And it was the GW appointee who created the wreck. The Bush 41 appointee wanted to throw out the whole thing, the clinton appointee wanted to keep the whole thing, and the GW appointee decided to rewrite the law the way s/he saw fit.

Now we have to rely on the SCOTUS to fix this. I'm pissed as all get out.

221 posted on 05/05/2003 2:58:34 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
Why do you think the reporting on this decision was so wrong?
222 posted on 05/05/2003 3:03:26 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Budge
Which is more important, removing a talking point, or honoring an oath?
223 posted on 05/05/2003 3:04:24 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I guess because they tried to get it out fast but since it was a 1600+ word ruling, they didn't bother with the details, hence the confusion. It's a wreck.
224 posted on 05/05/2003 3:05:13 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Of the three judge panel, one said the complete law is un-Constitutional; another female judge ( A Clinton appointee) said it is Constitutional; the last judge decided to re-write the law making it both Un- and Constitutional. Only the first judge got it right. It is purely un-Constitutional and I hope the Supremes will get it eliminated.
225 posted on 05/05/2003 4:01:13 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus (ax accountant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Is it me, or are a whole bunch of FReepers still misunderestimating Bush?

It's you.

226 posted on 12/10/2003 3:17:41 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


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