Skip to comments.
Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Finance Rules
Associated Press ^
| June 16, 2003
| Anne Gearan
Posted on 06/16/2003 8:29:54 AM PDT by AntiGuv
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-132 next last
The general consensus appears confident that the Supreme Court will strike down McCain-Feingold; I'm not so sure..
1
posted on
06/16/2003 8:29:55 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
To: AntiGuv
The general consensus appears confident that the Supreme Court will strike down McCain-Feingold; I'm not so sure.. The offending portion of McCain-Feingold that the court certainly will strike down is the ban on advertizing shortly before the election. It is a clear violation of the First Amendment. I don't care too much about the other stuff.
To: AntiGuv
By my reading this decision does not affect much since any group can just form a PAC and go its merry way. Do I misread it?
3
posted on
06/16/2003 8:34:24 AM PDT
by
justshutupandtakeit
(RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
To: AntiGuv; Admin Moderator
Dammit, you beat me. Admin Moderator, kill my post please.
4
posted on
06/16/2003 8:34:45 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE D)
To: AntiGuv
At first I believed that when the President signed the bill, making it law, it didn't matter, because the Supreme Court would over turn it. However, since then, I have decided this is not the way to protect the nation, relying on the Supreme Court to stop the damage that has already been done.
5
posted on
06/16/2003 8:35:18 AM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
(Lurking since 2000.)
To: Thane_Banquo
The offending portion of McCain-Feingold that the court certainly will strike down is the ban on advertizing shortly before the election. It is a clear violation of the First Amendment.Read this decision, and subsequently -- as I did -- lose some of your certainty in this regard.
6
posted on
06/16/2003 8:36:02 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE D)
To: AntiGuv
By this ruling, I am more confident that McCain Feingold will be struck down. This ruling gives the court the political cover to do so. This ruling only says that Congress can make laws restricting campaign contributions. Those laws still have to fit into the definition of what is constitutional.
7
posted on
06/16/2003 8:36:37 AM PDT
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: All
Now, where were those people who said that CFR will be shot down by the SCOTUS?
I know this is not that decision, but this decision indicates where SCOTUS is likely to go.
The 1st Amendment will, at that time, be officially repealed.
8
posted on
06/16/2003 8:37:24 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE D)
To: Pukin Dog
By this ruling, I am more confident that McCain Feingold will be struck down.I disagree. I hope you are right.
9
posted on
06/16/2003 8:38:28 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE D)
To: AntiGuv
bttt
To: Congressman Billybob
PING.
To: Lazamataz
Bush was a jackass for signing this law, but still, the Supreme Court will overturn the ban on individual groups advertising.
You can't have a clearer violation of the 1st amendment.
12
posted on
06/16/2003 8:42:32 AM PDT
by
dead
To: dead
You can't have a clearer violation of the 1st amendment.Since when did THAT stop 'em???
13
posted on
06/16/2003 8:43:09 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE D)
To: Thane_Banquo
SCOTUS is going to split the CFR up - some parts will be upheld, some will not. Someone working on the case pointed out to me, it's ALWAYS within 60 days of SOME election, so that part will certainly go.
That person has also promised to let me know when it is time to get out the sleeping bags to line up for tickets. I was trying to suck up & get one, but was informed that there are so many parties to the case, there won't even be enough "real" tickets for all the attorneys, so the only way for a regular person to go is to line up.
14
posted on
06/16/2003 8:44:24 AM PDT
by
nina0113
To: dead
Maybe they'll say independent ads are like shouting "fire!"...
15
posted on
06/16/2003 8:45:45 AM PDT
by
Tauzero
(the zero-arbitrage assumption is a self-fulfilling prophecy)
To: Pukin Dog; Thane_Banquo; Lazamataz
By this ruling, I am more confident that McCain Feingold will be struck down.I genuinely fail to see how that could be the case. How would you reconcile the Court's key campaign finance rulings of recent years, including this one, with a strike down of McCain-Feingold?
By a vote of 7-2, the court said the right to free speech does not trump Congress' goal of limiting the corrosive effects of corporate money in politics.
That's a fairly powerful statement; it's the very alleged essence of McCain-Feingold to accomplish just that task. Perhaps not the issue advocacy ads in particular, but the remainder of McCain-Feingold revolves about just that principle.
In 2001, the court ruled that political parties could not spend unlimited amounts of money if they coordinated their efforts with a candidate. And in 2000, the court voted to back Missouri's contribution limits to state campaigns.
However, this 2001 ruling would appear to bear relevance on the issue advocacy limitations. It would seem to indicate that the Court will find a 1st Amendment right to issue advocacy ads, but permit some level of significant restriction to ensure that they're not at all coordinated with particular campaigns. It's an open question how the Court may seek to accomplish such a judgment.
I'm not at all confident that McCain-Feingold or any part of that will get struck down in a meaningful fashion.
16
posted on
06/16/2003 8:46:02 AM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Looks like it, from the story. So NRA starts a PAC. Big deal.
17
posted on
06/16/2003 8:46:10 AM PDT
by
ninenot
(Joe McCarthy was RIGHT, but Drank Too Much)
To: AntiGuv
i was really surprised to see a 7-2 decision on this one.
To: AntiGuv
Whew! Title is scarier than the article.
19
posted on
06/16/2003 8:53:13 AM PDT
by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
To: nina0113
SCOTUS is going to split the CFR up - some parts will be upheld, some will not. Someone working on the case pointed out to me, it's ALWAYS within 60 days of SOME election, so that part will certainly go.Okay. Sounds like you have an inside scoop. I am relieved, a little. We shall see.
20
posted on
06/16/2003 8:54:02 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE DO NOT CROSS POLICE TAGLINE D)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-132 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson