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: NittanyLion
So what's left?

The SCOTUS appeal.

51 posted on 05/02/2003 1:01:45 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
So what's left?

Just enough to make a light snack for McCainiac

52 posted on 05/02/2003 1:01:59 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Looks like both parts fell. The soft money ban and the 90 day political ad part.

Wonderful news.

53 posted on 05/02/2003 1:02:17 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
From what I read they stripped this law down to the skin and bones. This one should go into the bottom of the bin of bad law.
54 posted on 05/02/2003 1:02:17 PM PDT by mware
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

So, for the moment the whole thing is ****canned?

GOOD!

Now, I will remember to send YET ANOTHER smarmy, sarcastic, nasty, "hate mail" to McWipe and Feingold reminding them that they both suck and that I I wrote them previously and told them this would happen.

Not that it matters, I just like to be a jerk.

55 posted on 05/02/2003 1:02:24 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (Sammy to Frodo: "Get out. Go sleep with one of your whores!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I mean, what provisions of the bill have survived?
56 posted on 05/02/2003 1:02:31 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
McInsane and the Free Speech Fascists were gobsmacked by the Constitution.
57 posted on 05/02/2003 1:02:46 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
GLORY HALLELUJAH!

58 posted on 05/02/2003 1:03:05 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 50 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
So does that part of the law immediately cease to be in effect? Or will the courts grant a stay until the Supreme Court rules?
59 posted on 05/02/2003 1:03:50 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mware
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's been the GOP's argument all along and at least now they have a court ruling. Hopefully this would put it to bed forever.

I'm sure there will be an appeal though.

60 posted on 05/02/2003 1:04:26 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: mware
Heck, the hard money limits they left in place actually represent an increase, don't they? While I think they shouldn't restrict hard money, an increase is good.
61 posted on 05/02/2003 1:04:34 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 54 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
As I see it, CFR is dead. If you can't limit large soft money donations or restrict speech, CFR is fundamentally broken as currently constructed.
62 posted on 05/02/2003 1:04:54 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
It barred the federal government from enforcing them and all other parts of the law it struck down.

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

63 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:05 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Sounds like the whole thing has been gutted, which means that one of the few sections that survived is the title on severability, which means that if any part of the statute is invalidated, the rest can survive.

Sounds like that is all that is left.

64 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:06 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Don't know. We'll have to ask a lawyer that one.
65 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:23 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
will the courts grant a stay until the Supreme Court rules

My understanding, from working in law firms for the past 5 years---there's an automatic stay until the final appellate court makes it decision.

66 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:31 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
The law won't enforced until the U.S Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the law. But I think there's little doubt most of its not gonna survive. To make this legal gag on free speech constitutional, you'd have to repeal the First Amendment.
67 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:36 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Hard money limits were essentially doubled.
68 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:45 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
Sounds like that is all that is left.

What about the increase in individual contribution limits?

69 posted on 05/02/2003 1:05:48 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
My guess would be the only part left standing is the upping of the hard money contributions which are inflation adjusted annually now as well.

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

70 posted on 05/02/2003 1:06:49 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
Hard money limits were essentially doubled. Ahahahahahaha! Which is a very good thing for our side.
71 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:09 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 68 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple

SF Gate        www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

WASHN: and beyond.

Friday, May 2, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/02/national1605EDT0691.DTL

(05-02) 13:05 PDT (AP) -- The decision is a victory for the Republican National Committee and dozens of interest groups, who contended that the law would undermine their ability to participate in politics. It is a loss for Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin who fought for years to get a new law enacted. They argued that it was time to end the corrupting influence of big money in politics.

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.

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.

Also voting 2-1, the court struck down a provision barring a range of interest groups from airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts in the month before a primary election and within two months of a general election.

The court made its ruling effective immediately, barring the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the restrictions it struck down.

The new campaign finance law took effect Nov. 6, forcing an immediate change in party fund raising.

It prohibited the national party committees from raising contributions known as "soft money" from corporations, unions and others. The Democratic and Republican parties have collected the unlimited checks in ever-increasing amounts: The fall election saw some contributions of $1 million and more. The parties were allowed to use the money on general party-building activities such as voter registration drives and issue ads.


72 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:10 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
See post 68. I was being slightly sarcastic.
73 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:11 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Bush knew that the hard money limits would stay as part of the compromise.

Yet the soft money would not past muster with the courts.

OF course, this must just be dumb luck for Bush, since he is so stupid, right?
74 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:19 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: *CFR List; *Silence, America!
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
75 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:22 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I'd like to know what court this comes from and what the ruling was... any dissentions and things like that. Anyone?

Mike

76 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:22 PM PDT by BCR #226
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
What survived was the increase in the hard money limits. I mean even a 10 year old child could have seen this one coming and our august senators proved to be less intelligent than our kids. They just had to trample on the Constitution to look good in front of the TV cameras.
77 posted on 05/02/2003 1:07:49 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
Sounds like the whole thing has been gutted, which means that one of the few sections that survived is the title on severability, which means that if any part of the statute is invalidated, the rest can survive.

That'd be some irony...

78 posted on 05/02/2003 1:08:01 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: krb
Which part?

As long as it's not the $2000 limit it doesn't matter to the good guys, however I'm sure the DEMONCRATS are delighted, they really hated this law.

79 posted on 05/02/2003 1:08:25 PM PDT by Mister Baredog ((They wanted to kill 50,000 of us on 9/11, we will never forget!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I wonder if this hurts Kerry's campaign by reducing the advantage he has from being independently wealthy.
80 posted on 05/02/2003 1:08:34 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | 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.

THANK GOD!!!!


81 posted on 05/02/2003 1:08:34 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
My guess would be the only part left standing is the upping of the hard money contributions which are inflation adjusted annually now as well.

It would appear that way.

82 posted on 05/02/2003 1:08:35 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Looks like you can start writing your brief.
83 posted on 05/02/2003 1:09:02 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
So, who's the one that voted for both provisions? A clinton appointee no doubt.
84 posted on 05/02/2003 1:09:06 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
The only sad point is that one of the three judges would have actually upheld this crappy, unconstitutional law.
85 posted on 05/02/2003 1:09:28 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 72 | View Replies]

To: fooman
OF course, this must just be dumb luck for Bush, since he is so stupid, right?

'Zactly!

86 posted on 05/02/2003 1:09:30 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
That is great news.

Gives me some faith today.
87 posted on 05/02/2003 1:10:00 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

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

If true, and if SCOTUS doesn't reverse this ruling, than I will be thrilled to admit my worrying was over nothing.

I have to say though, I still don't like the idea of political gamesmanship over fundamental rights...

88 posted on 05/02/2003 1:10:03 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
It's a special three-judge court.
89 posted on 05/02/2003 1:10:20 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
In fairness, it is also true that the soft money ban hurt the RATS much more than the GOP, so its invalidation helps the RATS, particularly labor union activity and spending.

On the other hand, no law was going to stop the RATS from cheating and breaking the law, anyway, so it is probably a wash.
90 posted on 05/02/2003 1:11:20 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
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.

91 posted on 05/02/2003 1:11:47 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

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

THIS IS GREAT NEWS!
92 posted on 05/02/2003 1:12:04 PM PDT by justshe (I'm #6 on the top ten list of lairs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: fooman
OF course, this must just be dumb luck for Bush, since he is so stupid, right? Bush is not stupid and I never said he was. He should not have gambled with the constitution, however. Yes, he was lucky. One of the judges (out of only three), voted to uphold the law. Bush is not a psychic. He did not "know" anything. 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 is either a liar, by your definition, or a gambler.

Anyway, let's just celebrate the win.

93 posted on 05/02/2003 1:12:22 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 74 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Sadly, this bill needed to pass and be ruled unconstituional to put this thing to bed for good. Ignorant journalists and politicians, like McCain and Feingold, were going to continue use this issue primarily against Republicans in the future. Now it is done. No more discussion.
94 posted on 05/02/2003 1:12:25 PM PDT by rockinonritalin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RandDisciple
Anyone who passes or enforces an unconstitutional law should be stripped of their office.
95 posted on 05/02/2003 1:12:34 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshe
Yep.
96 posted on 05/02/2003 1:12:38 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
The one judge who upheld the entire law happened to be a Bill Clinton appointee.
97 posted on 05/02/2003 1:12:45 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer; mware; Howlin
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.

This is bigger than we could imagine!

98 posted on 05/02/2003 1:13:02 PM PDT by Dog (Please write your complaint legibly in that box - - - - - - - -->[ ].)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mwl1
I thought labor unions received some exemption for this horrible law anyway.
99 posted on 05/02/2003 1:13:34 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 90 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
Well, when he signed it, he said he has some questions about the constitutionality of it. He did the right thing because now it's settled - of course, they will appeal and lose there too - and can't be used as a stupid campaign issue.
100 posted on 05/02/2003 1:14:04 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | 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