Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McCain Praises Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Campaign Finance
PHXnews ^ | 6/16/03 | John McCain

Posted on 06/16/2003 10:53:36 AM PDT by AZ Righty

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) released the following statement today in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban on direct, political contributions:

“The Supreme Court’s decision today ..."

*I do not have permission to post McCain's comments but I saw them at http://www.phxnews.com/

(Excerpt) Read more at phxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cfr; cfrlist; mccain; mccainfeingold

1 posted on 06/16/2003 10:53:37 AM PDT by AZ Righty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
You don't need permission to post his comments.


2 posted on 06/16/2003 10:57:37 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
While we're destroying the first amendment, let's knock the press down a notch or two too.
3 posted on 06/16/2003 10:58:04 AM 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 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
Not much of a description of the ruling to even form an opinion.
4 posted on 06/16/2003 10:59:49 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
Decision here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-403.pdf
5 posted on 06/16/2003 11:03:08 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
McCain would prefer you wouldn't know too much about this issue.
6 posted on 06/16/2003 11:03:18 AM PDT by AZ Righty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
I'm still shaking my head that these law makers think they have to pass a law to make them honest
7 posted on 06/16/2003 11:06:06 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) released the following statement today in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban on direct, political contributions:

“The Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold the ban on direct, political contributions from corporations is both welcome and consistent with legal precedent and congressional reform efforts. Corporations have been barred from making campaign contributions from their general treasury funds for almost a century, and I am heartened by the Court’s refusal today to erode that prohibition and open up the potential for corruption and circumvention. Americans deserve a political finance system that is free from the taint of corruption and the undue influence of special interests.”

8 posted on 06/16/2003 11:09:00 AM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
From this part (near the end of the third page)

"even NCRL’s argument that §441b is not closely drawn rests on the false premise that the provision is a complete ban. In fact, the provision allows corporate political participation through PACs. And this Court does not think that regulatory burdens on PACs, including restrictions on their ability to solicit funds, renders a PAC unconstitutional as an advo-cacy corporation’s sole avenue for making political contributions."

It doesn't appear that too much has changed.

9 posted on 06/16/2003 11:11:48 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
If I am not mistaken, the ruling was case specific and had nothing to do with the McCain Feingold travesty.

McC and the media spewing bullship as usual.

10 posted on 06/16/2003 11:18:08 AM PDT by OldFriend (Hilary Knew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Reminds me of something that happened in Mass. The Legislature had voted themselves another midnight pay raise. One of the (Dem) leadership defended it, saying that by passing the payraise they wouldn't have to depend on corruption to stay ahead of the economy.
11 posted on 06/16/2003 11:20:21 AM PDT by theDentist (So. This is Virginia.... where are all the virgins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
One of the (Dem) leadership defended it, saying that by passing the payraise they wouldn't have to depend on corruption to stay ahead of the economy.

OMG .. did they say that with a straight face

It if wasn't so sad .. it would be laughable

12 posted on 06/16/2003 11:22:34 AM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
If so, then McCain will look like an idiot later if the court later gives him a ruling he doesn't like.
13 posted on 06/16/2003 11:25:34 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Yup. I'll have to dig up the quote. I think the spokesman was "anonymous". It was several years ago. will check when I get home.
14 posted on 06/16/2003 11:26:47 AM PDT by theDentist (So. This is Virginia.... where are all the virgins?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
McC is so shameless nothing can faze him at all.
15 posted on 06/16/2003 11:26:48 AM PDT by OldFriend (Hilary Knew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
I wish McCain took the issue of the army buying chinese made berets as seriously as he takes this crap.
16 posted on 06/16/2003 11:28:35 AM PDT by adam_az
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
SCOTUS did not uphold the McCain-Feingold bill. They upheld a somewhat related case regarding a 32 year old federal law prohibiting adcovacy groups from giving campaign contributions to a candidate.

The title of this article is somewhat misleading, something we've come to expect from the mainstream media.

I feel that some parts of McCain-Feingold will not survive - for example, the 60 days prior to an election (or however many days it is) ban of all campaign advertisements.

I'm kind of surprised liberal activists aren't raising as much of a stink. McCain-Feingold aka The Media's Political Views Empowerment Act also bestows the same influence on banes of liberal existence like Limbaugh-Hannity-Savage-O'Reilly.
17 posted on 06/16/2003 11:29:32 AM PDT by BaBaStooey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
I give up, where's the article?
18 posted on 06/16/2003 11:29:53 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
I fully support your effort to get people to post full content.

This site is becoming nothing more than one big excerpt. Ten days later those posts are rubbage.



D1
19 posted on 06/16/2003 11:31:15 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
Considering that CFR is hurting the dems more than the pubbies, things could be worse.
20 posted on 06/16/2003 11:31:58 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
McCain would prefer you wouldn't know too much about this issue.

McCain would prefer we not know too much about anything the Government does.

21 posted on 06/16/2003 11:33:07 AM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Then steal the logo. I did. ;D
22 posted on 06/16/2003 11:39:16 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
You don't need permission to post his comments.

But such excerpting would be considered critical of McCain and thus a donation in kind to his next opponent. If so, then AZ Righty would have to report the "donation" or risk arrest under McCain-Feingold. And if that's the case, then kindly forget what I just wrote so I won't end up in the pen.

23 posted on 06/16/2003 11:39:43 AM PDT by Redcloak (All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak; AZ Righty
Courage, man. If we're going to skate on thin ice, we might as well dance.

Let's hear it for full text!

24 posted on 06/16/2003 11:42:52 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
I did too. I've got it and will be using it.
25 posted on 06/16/2003 11:45:10 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) released the following statement today in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban on direct, political contributions:

“The Supreme Court’s decision today to uphold the ban on direct, political contributions from corporations is both welcome and consistent with legal precedent and congressional reform efforts. Corporations have been barred from making campaign contributions from their general treasury funds for almost a century, and I am heartened by the Court’s refusal today to erode that prohibition and open up the potential for corruption and circumvention. Americans deserve a political finance system that is free from the taint of corruption and the undue influence of special interests.”


26 posted on 06/16/2003 11:45:48 AM PDT by deport (Scratch a dog and you will have a permanent job.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart
The Dems will be begging for the repeal of campaign finance reform after they get trounced in 2004 in large part due to their extreme fundraising disadvantage. They simply cannot raise the kind of hard money the GOP can and it will cost them. Just wait.
27 posted on 06/16/2003 11:46:02 AM PDT by zebrahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: theDentist
One of the (Dem) leadership defended it, saying that by passing the payraise they wouldn't have to depend on corruption to stay ahead of the economy.

In Taxachussetts, they want to keep corruption as a fringe benefit, rather than part of their core salaries.

28 posted on 06/16/2003 11:46:18 AM PDT by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
McCain would prefer you wouldn't know too much about this issue.

paraphrased..."That's because he's a douche-bag". (Justice for All)

FMCDH

29 posted on 06/16/2003 11:51:18 AM PDT by nothingnew (the pendulum swings and the libs are in the pit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
Don't anybody panic - this is a separate issue than the McCain issue. This is not related to the McConnell lawsuit.
30 posted on 06/16/2003 12:44:09 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
SCOTUS upheld a 30 year old law...one that's been on the books and "worked around" for years. McLame is whacked.
31 posted on 06/16/2003 1:34:02 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *CFR List
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
32 posted on 06/16/2003 1:41:48 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Mo1
Not possible. Not one of 'em have a straigt face.
34 posted on 06/16/2003 1:55:52 PM PDT by Warren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ianincali
In Arizona the Election is exactly 60 days out from the primary.

So you couldn't run attack ads against McCain past the primary.
35 posted on 06/16/2003 2:15:45 PM PDT by AZ Righty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
Remember the defense of George Bush when he signed this abomination into law? "Never fear, the Supremes will rule it unconstitutional. It's a bold political move to disarm McCain's only issue. Bush is a political genius; he knows what he's doing."

I'll be expecting full, red-faced retractions from the Bush idolators any time now.

36 posted on 06/16/2003 2:55:23 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
"Remember the defense of George Bush when he signed this abomination into law? "Never fear, the Supremes will rule it unconstitutional. It's a bold political move to disarm McCain's only issue. Bush is a political genius; he knows what he's doing."

"I'll be expecting full, red-faced retractions from the Bush idolators any time now."

You might go back to posting #5 and click on the link provided. This was a specific case that the court decided on. Not the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. There has been no decision made on that yet.

37 posted on 06/16/2003 4:00:47 PM PDT by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
McCain is a dingus.
38 posted on 06/16/2003 4:16:25 PM PDT by Conservative til I die (They say anti-Catholicism is the thinking man's anti-Semitism; that's an insult to thinking men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Well, no, the case doesn't specifically deal with McCain-Feingold. But it ought to give pause to all those who, for over a year, have blithely asserted that the Supreme Court will toss McCain-Feingold out the window. This opinion is full of language that could be used to uphold McCain-Feingold. It adopts all the reasoning that the reform types always spout, and it was a 7-2 decision.

We are in deep doo-doo on McCain-Feingold.
39 posted on 06/16/2003 4:32:38 PM PDT by Rensselaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Wrong CyberAnt. It's time to panic. This case is definitely a harbinger of bad things to come.
40 posted on 06/16/2003 4:34:14 PM PDT by Rensselaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Considering that CFR is hurting the dems more than the pubbies, things could be worse.

Sort of, alot of the democrats are whining about John Edwards and the law firms violating campaign financing laws.

Long story short, lawyers are making large donations, but they are doing in them in the names of everyone they know, including secretary's, clerks, and even clients. In these cases, the person who has the donation in there name, gets reimbursed, and some of them are dragged to fundraisers.

He's already been caught twice for violations, each time, he has given back something like the 10 g's that he ill gottenly recieved.

I know Kerry, Dean and Gephardt were pretty mad about it, in both cases, the person that the lawyer made the donation in the name of and gave a re-imbursement back to, was also a democrat who supported a different canidate.

41 posted on 06/16/2003 4:49:56 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rensselaer
Sorry! Don't agree!!
42 posted on 06/16/2003 5:59:51 PM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The dems will simply ignore it.

It is designed to hurt the republicans. [to wit] Money from organizations such as the NRA and the pro life movement.

As stated above and as they do all laws that hinder their agenda [the complete and total destruction of the United States] the democrats and their contributors will simply ignore the law.
43 posted on 06/16/2003 6:16:42 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
You know what I think about this. I think (Censored by the USSC) and that candidates for office like (Censored by the USSC) should not be allowed to (Censored by the USSC). Nor should the other parties (Censored by the USSC) take advantage of those of us on boards like FR to speak our minds by (Censored by the USSC). In fact I think FR is (Censored by the USSC) way that we have any hope left to (Censored by the USSC). It's a (Censored by the USSC) that (Censored by the USSC) can do what these (Censored by the USSC) retentive groups like (Censored by the USSC) to honest Constitutinalists like (Censored by the USSC) (Censored by the USSC) (Censored by the USSC) (Censored by the USSC). Sigh. I guess from now on, we'll only be allowed to talk about the weather.
44 posted on 06/16/2003 6:42:20 PM PDT by Beck_isright (When Senator Byrd landed on an aircraft carrier, the blacks were forced below shoveling coal...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beck_isright
"Constitutinalists" = Constitutionalists

I was so (Censored by the USSC) (Censored by the USSC) (Censored by the USSC) (Censored by the USSC) damn flabergassed by this (Censored by the USSC) (Censored by the USSC) decision I couldn't think straight.
45 posted on 06/16/2003 6:44:36 PM PDT by Beck_isright (When Senator Byrd landed on an aircraft carrier, the blacks were forced below shoveling coal...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
I'm kind of surprised liberal activists aren't raising as much of a stink. McCain-Feingold aka The Media's Political Views Empowerment Act also bestows the same influence on banes of liberal existence like Limbaugh-Hannity-Savage-O'Reilly.

They think that it's just Limbaugh and the audio-only Hannity/Savage that they have to worry about. They haven't quite acknowledged that we've got our feet in the door of TV.

46 posted on 06/16/2003 9:51:58 PM PDT by steveegg (Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, air-burst artillery and thermonuclear weapons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Has there been any more talk about a conservative challenging the McCainiac in the GOP primary next year? Guess that's just wishful thinking.
47 posted on 06/17/2003 3:27:39 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AZ Righty
So, those who thought the Supreme Court would rescue the cowardly Congress on "campaign finance reform" have been refuted AGAIN???
48 posted on 06/17/2003 3:28:27 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
This supreme court ruling is simply confirming an old old law. This has nothing to do with campaign finance law just passed. Please inform yourself before you get upset.
49 posted on 06/17/2003 4:18:18 PM PDT by OldFriend (Hilary Knew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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