Supreme Court Upholds Campaign Finance Rules

Associated Press ^ | June 16, 2003 | Anne Gearan

[Lazamataz]

The only thing that really bothers me is the 30 day and 60 day ad bans and I still think they will be shot down.

I hope you are right.

Also I was just pointing out the bias of the reporter with her leaving out the word "union" in regards to the original law.

Good catch.

You are much nicer away from the drug threads. Therefore: Drugs are bad for you, Dane. Just say no.

[Pukin Dog]

So what?

Vote against him if you wish. The reality is that if politicians told the truth they would NEVER get or stay elected. I would rather have a lying Bush in office than ANY lying Democrat.

You, on the other hand, can join those well meaning, truth telling Libertarians, who NEVER get elected.

I don't care who knows it; I will support MY liar over THEIR liar every time. Democrats do, and if we dont start, they will eventually regain power, and take away everything we have gained.

[NittanyLion]

I don't care who knows it; I will support MY liar over THEIR liar every time. Democrats do, and if we dont start, they will eventually regain power, and take away everything we have gained.

That really is the the nasty little secret few seem willing to acknowledge. At least you're honest about it.

[Pukin Dog]

Again, great catch, Dane.

[SUSSA]

I never said that I thought he lied. That is your assessment of the man. But it is good to know that you will support a liar if he is from your party. So how do you differ from the Clintonistas who refused to stop supporting their liar?

[Lazamataz]

But it is good to know that you will support a liar if he is from your party. So how do you differ from the Clintonistas who refused to stop supporting their liar?

Coin-A-Term: Bushistas? Bushidos? Bushmen?

[SUSSA]

Hummmmmmm or how about Bush Cultists?

[Pukin Dog]

That really is the the nasty little secret few seem willing to acknowledge.

Yes, and I dont know why, either. I know that we like to believe that we are more moral and decent then the other side, just like the other side believes it of us. I may upset a lot of Conservatives, but the Left thinks that they are the MORAL ones.

The truth is that we are all universally more interested in our own ideas than the other guy's. It is literally a war of ideas. Playing fair in war, can lead to long periods of LOSING. Just like the Republicans in Congress through the 60's and 70's.

Republicans have only recently woken up and discovered that if you want to win, you have to get down in the mud and wrestle that pig.

Winning clean is not as important as WINNING period. Losers accomplish nothing.

[TLBSHOW]

Are you doing a radio show soon?

[VRWC_minion]

In this case, corporations are on trial more than free speech.

Basically what I get from reading the case quickly is that the SC's logic is that if we allowed this nonprofit to duck the laws that apply to the big bad corporations and unions then we would be inconsistant and we would have to allow these big bad corporations and unions to do whatever they wanted. We can't do both, therefore we must use a lesser excuse than strict scrutiny (which wouldn't work) and apply it to the poor nonprofit.

Actually some of the logic holds for me because it is conceivable that if I donate to a corporate group that says they will support anti-abortion issues I have no way of actually controlling what they say and do.

I would be interested to see what they would to do, say a group of us FR folks, who pass the hat on running an advertisement. Something tells me that that would be protected because we are not acting within an entity that enjoys special privelidges created by the state.

[rudehost]

Articulate arguments are not often useful against media-backed Democratic hyperbole and outright lies. This is not an issue where a majority of the public at large is going to actually educate themselves on the facts, and reach a proper conclusion.

I disagree. Well stated and thought out arguments can carry the day regardless of the media's attitude. I present the Contract with America that was relatively successful despite massive media attacks.

As far as GW's job it is absolutely NOT to get elected. His job is to preserve and protect the constitution. Unfortunately this is a job that he deserted in favor of a quest for media love.

[TLBSHOW]

great catch, NittanyLion

[VRWC_minion]

Unfortunately this is a job that he deserted in favor of a quest for media love.

Here is my problem with this statement. If it turns out that the SC agreed with the bill as signed, then its constitutional. How do we trash the man for signing an unconstitutional bill that gets upheld as constutitional ?

We may disagree with it but we certainly lose credibility by claiming he breached a duty by signing something that later proved to be upheld. I think the case against him only works if the SC rules against him.

[Pukin Dog]

I differ only in that I think our side has better and proven ideas that benefit this country. Other than that, I just want to win. I differ from Clintonistas only in that someone of Clinton's character would never have gotten my vote in the first place. I understand that men are not perfect creatures, so I can choose the BETTER man, without having to pretend that the man is a saint worthy of praise.

[Pukin Dog]

Vote against the man, then. That is your right. Just vote for someone else, and spare me the righteous indignation.

[Just another Joe]

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.

So much for the Constitution being the law of the land.
It's just a goal that is overpowering an amendment.
Forget about being a Constitutional Republic.

[SUSSA]

I applaud your honesty. At least you come right out and admit that you would rather have a Republican liar than a Democrat liar and do not try to paint your guy as something you don’t believe he is.

There are some here who refuse to believe that Bush ever does anything wrong, slick or dishonest. You seem to be better informed than that.

I readily admit that I may be seeking a candidate that no longer exists and if he does may be unelectable. I’m looking for another Jefferson and the only man I see that is close is not going to run for office. If I could wave a wand and make anyone president I’d make Dr. Walter Williams president for 12 years.

I know that will not happen. I also know that unless we pressure the politicians who are running they will never do our will. And unless we call them on it when they lie or put their own political good ahead of their duty we will never improve the choice of those running or actions of those in office.

[SUSSA]

Today is the first day I've even had a chance to get on FR in about 2 months. I hope to get my schedule fixed where I can get back on the radio soon.

Thanks for asking.

[rudehost]

Thats the thing. The SCOTUS cannot always be correct on what is constitutional. The evidence of that is their reversal of their own previous decisions. That means by definition the court is often wrong on the constitution. Unless you believe in a living breathing constitution you can't use the supreme court as a barometer of constitutionality.

That being said I will go with the plain language that is crystal clear that this is unconstitutional. GW basically admitted as much when he signed it.

[TLBSHOW]

Good luck. You sure picked a good day to come back.