Supreme Court Will NOT Block Part of Lower Court Ruling on New Campaign Finance Law(issue ads)

AP ^ | 5-13-03 | Anne Gearan

[Dan from Michigan]

Supreme Court Will Not Block Part of Lower Court Ruling on New Campaign Finance Law

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court declined to intervene Tuesday to block part of a lower court's long-delayed ruling on the new campaign finance law, but the move is almost certainly not the high court's last word on the subject.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist turned down a request from the National Rifle Association, which had asked the high court to suspend what it calls unconstitutional restrictions on political advertisements by interest groups.

Rehnquist's action was not a ruling on the merits of the NRA's argument, or on the entire lower court pronouncement on the campaign finance law.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule eventually on whether the entire law violates the constitutional principle of free speech. Because of unexplained delays in the lower court, that ruling is now unlikely to come before this fall.

Rehnquist did not give a reason for rejecting the NRA's emergency request for a stay, or suspension of a May 2 ruling by lower court judges. Numerous groups with a stake in campaign fund raising have asked the lower court to put part or all of its ruling on hold, pending a full review by the Supreme Court. The lower court is not expected to rule on those requests until Wednesday at the earliest.

The NRA tried to jump ahead on Monday by asking the Supreme Court to get involved. Rehnquist said the NRA could renew the high court request if the lower court has not acted by May 20.

The NRA says the lower court isn't moving quickly enough, and it has ads it wants to air now.

The lower court ruled unconstitutional a provision of the law barring a range of interest groups, including those financed with corporate and union money, from airing political ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts the month before a primary and within two months of a general election.

It upheld fallback rules that bar the same groups from airing ads that promote, support, attack or oppose a candidate at any time. It's unclear how far interest groups can go when featuring candidates in ads because the law doesn't define what it means to promote, support, attack or oppose.

If the NRA wins a stay from either court, the 30-60 day ad restrictions would be in effect. The group opposes those too, but says it prefers them to the fallback rules because it's not a congressional election year.

[Dan from Michigan]

This piece of crap bill needs to be tarred, feathers, doused in gasoline, and burned.

[ken5050]

I wonder if the CJ had hoped to retire BEFORE he had to deal with this mess....

[JohnGalt]

Interesting in light of Miramax funding a feature length film with Michael Moore that will no doubt, be less than kind to the Bush re-election campaign.

Looks like the NRA will have to get into the film business if they want to get the message out near election time...I believe John Ross is still looking for a produce for Unintended Consquences....

[Dan from Michigan]

If I had 200 million, I'd do it.

[VRWC_minion]

Would the SC rather handle the bill in total rather than in part ?

[big bad easter bunny]

Does any body know what the penalties are for exercising your right to free speech according to McCain Feingold? There obviously is no one yet who has been accused of doing it yet. Once there is a case I doubt the courts will up hold a conviction.

[rwfromkansas]

It looks like this is temporary.

[rwfromkansas]

It is disgusting that they will release that right in time for the campaign. You have to know that is purely for political reasons.

[JohnGalt]

Tasteless, but a clever way around a stupid law.

[Timesink]

This means nothing. Like the very first sentence says, this is just procedural maneuvering. SCOUTUS will rule on it.

[steve50]

Once there is a case I doubt the courts will up hold a conviction

Only take a few hundred thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to find out. This unConstitutional thing should never have been signed into law.

[Timesink]

Interesting in light of Miramax funding a feature length film with Michael Moore that will no doubt, be less than kind to the Bush re-election campaign.

Two words: Wellstone memorial. If it comes out just before the election and is essentially one huge made-up lie (like his most recent film has proved to be), the consequences to the RATS will be incalculably huge.

They just can't get away with it any more. The "mainstream" media no longer controls the information flow; WE do.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And Bush needs to be soundly chastized for ever signing it.

[StockAyatollah]

Yes, what if someone goes ahead and commits the aggregious offense of exercising their 1st ammendment rights without waiting for some court's permission? When someone prays in a public school do they get arrested?

Any judge or politician who tries to tell us the Constitution does not say what it says should just be ignored. I wish I had the money to finance a huge, nationwide, in-your-face TV/radio/newspaper/magazine/billboard ad campaign in defiance of the McCain-Feingold.

[Sloth]

And Bush needs to be soundly chastized for ever signing it.

Haven't you heard? That was just one particularly subtle facet in his brilliant master plan to defeat CFR. Or so say various deluded FReepers.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Maybe Spiderman 2, Terminator 4, and Superman will counter its effects in the public's psyche. Seriously, the WH can use this to totally discredit the idiot by refuting what he says.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yet they cannot tell why he didn't allow it to become law without his signature.

[RAT Patrol]

You don't understand, this was a brilliant move on Bush's part..../sarcasm

[El Gato]

This piece of crap bill law needs to be tarred, feathers, doused in gasoline, and burned.

Remember it's already passed, it's the law. That is, those parts of it left after the lower court ruling are.

Otherwise though, I aggree with your sentiments completely.

[sheltonmac]

The Supreme Court is expected to rule eventually on whether the entire law violates the constitutional principle of free speech.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

It is clearly unconstitutional. How can the court reach any other conclusion? Why is there any debate at all over this?