Libertarian Party: Campaign Finance Reform Ruling is Assault on Free Speech

Libertarian Party press release ^ | December 11, 2003 | George Getz

[Commie Basher]

====================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
====================================
For release: December 11, 2003
====================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008
====================================

High court's ruling is all-out assault on right to engage in politics, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Libertarian Party, which is one of the plaintiffs that challenged the campaign finance law upheld on Tuesday by the Supreme Court, has denounced the ruling as an "all-out assault on the right of every American to engage in the political process."

"Why not just outlaw elections and get it over with?" said Geoffrey Neale, the Libertarian Party's national chair. "The Supreme Court has just given incumbent politicians the power to financially cripple their competitors and, in the process, award themselves lifetime jobs."

In a 5-4 ruling that shocked advocacy groups across the political spectrum, the Supreme Court endorsed key provisions of the McCain- Feingold campaign finance law. Specifically, the court upheld a ban on "soft money" contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions, as well the law's prohibition on running certain political advertisements within close proximity to an election.

But Libertarians point out that McCain-Feingold was nothing more than an incumbent protection act in the first place -- and that the court's ruling was tantamount to outlawing political competition.

"Running for office and communicating a message aren't free," Neale said. "So making it illegal to raise money to buy political ads, and banning the ads during the period when they're most effective, is tantamount to outlawing the message itself. That's a crime against the First Amendment as well as an affront to the democratic process."

Incumbent politicians already enjoy powerful advantages, Neale pointed out, such as name recognition and the ability to attract news media, taxpayer-financed staffs and office space, and the franking privilege.

The so-called campaign finance reform act was merely an attempt to eliminate the only weapon that many challengers have: contributions freely given by individuals or groups that share their views, he noted.

Acknowledging that the stated goal of the legislation was to clean up politics, Neale said: "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out that 'corruption, and in particular the appearance of corruption,' is rampant in Washington -- and of course, she's right.

"But a free-flowing, robust political debate isn't the problem; it's the solution. The only way to dislodge an entrenched, corrupt politician is to allow competing candidates, and anyone else who so chooses, to publicly criticize them and offer voters a better alternative.

"By upholding McCain-Feingold, the Supreme Court has merely guaranteed that corrupt politicians will stay in office for a longer period of time."

In March 1992, the Libertarian Party signed on as a co-plaintiff in McConnell v FEC, the lawsuit spearheaded by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell that sought to overturn the campaign finance reform law.

The party argued that the law would have a devastating impact on its activities by eliminating certain sources of revenue and imposing significant regulatory and administrative burdens.

For example, the law prohibits the organization from accepting donations of more than $25,000 from any individual; prevents it from taking money from organizations that are not "recognized political committees," so it cannot sell ads in its party newspaper to nonprofit corporations or incorporated businesses; and cannot accept funds for memberships or literature from its own state affiliates, unless they also comply with the law's onerous regulations.

However, the party was vindicated by one aspect of Tuesday's ruling, Neale added, when the court struck down the provision of the law banning minors from making contributions to political parties.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I'm surprised and disappointed to read this, Jim. You're basically absolving Bush for signing this un-Constitutional piece of crap into law in the first place. Where was the much-warranted veto? Why did the SCOTUS get the case in the first place? For that matter, why did Bush have the opportunity to sign such a bill with the GOP in control of the entire Congress?

Let's put the blame where the blame belongs, not just where it's convenient.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

So because it doesn't affect you personally, it's okay for the First Amendment to get hammered? What sort of logic is that?

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

What a bunch of garbage. You guys are saying that it's okay for the Congress, Bush, and SCOTUS to tear down one of the most fundamental building blocks of this country so long as it helps Bush get re-elected in 2004.

That is beyond frightening.

[woodyinscc]

That is beyond frightening.

What the hell are you talking about, there is not one of us that agree with this Bill. Why don't you get behind McCain for President or Dean or Gore. all of them would have signed this Bill with glee, that is what is scary.! Throw in Hillary why you are at it, you might as well, your logic is what is scary.!!!

[nopardons]

What's " FRIGHTENING ", is that you have attempted to put words in my mouth, have totally misrepsented what I said in my post, have IGNORED, utterly, what I did write, and still don't understand WHY President Bush didn't veto the CFR in the first place, still don't know what a president can and can not/ should and should not say, and are seemingly devoid of even the slightest comprehension about politics, government, and the various, actual meanings of that which you are railing against.

Please, get someone to explain this all to you, as I shan't. There isn't enough time nor money, for me to take on that thankless job. LOL

[onyx]

Apparently, you cannot comprehend written word.

You guys are saying that it's okay for the Congress, Bush, and SCOTUS to tear down one of the most fundamental building blocks of this country so long as it helps Bush get re-elected in 2004.

To invoke your term, "it is beyond frightening" for you to suggest, much less publicly post, such a nonsensical assertion.

Woodyinscc, stated his opinion and whilst I commend him and agree with him, neither of us stated our agreement with the ruling.

If not the Congress, POTUS and SCOTUS, who else shall decide? YOU?

[onyx]

LOL! High-fives, yall! Same page. At least we read and write with clsarity.

[nopardons]

Wasn't that his/her implication to begin with ? LOL

[nopardons]

^5s back!

And you couldn't be more correct, if you tried .

Some people are incapable of reading the written word, without the filter of their tightly held bisases/ blinkers on. That only leads to willful misrepresentations, in their posts, of what has been posted to them. Fortunately, others can and DO see what's what, since they aren't seeing through a glass darkly.

[onyx]

Of course, I made no mention of our typing skills. LOL!

[nopardons]

Typing " skills " ? What typing " skills " ? ROTFLMSO

[woodyinscc]

FWIW John Locke is one of my hero's, I have read every one of his treatists on the 2nd amendndment. I am a member of the NRA and do not even own a gun. I feel the same about the 1st amendment and all the rest. I just have this nasty habit of looking at the big picture, in the political landscape. I can understand your concern and angst over this decision, but the accusation of me being gleeful because I think it will get Bush reelected is beyond the pale.

[buccaneer]

I have to agree with you.the oath of office doesn't say let the courts figure it out,it says you must uphold the constitution!!!!period.the CFR.is unconstitutional on it's face.NO EXCUSE SIR!!!

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Woodyinscc, stated his opinion and whilst I commend him and agree with him, neither of us stated our agreement with the ruling.

If not the Congress, POTUS and SCOTUS, who else shall decide? YOU

Not me. Wasn't elected or appointed to the job.

woodyinscc stated:

I remember the political climate at the time. President Bush was under constant attack. I admit that I breathed a collective sigh of relief when he signed the damn thing.

You slapped him on the back:

Thank YOU for the succinctly stated eloquence of the unvarnished truth in your post #9.

I take exception to all of these statements. The First Amendment was collectively violated by all three branches of government, and woodyinscc is "breathing a sigh of relief" over it, to your applause. And the sole reason for Bush signing the law was public sentiment being in favor of it, and him not wanting to risk alienating voters over it. That is political expediency at the expense of the rule of law. What else can it be called?

Neither of you "stated your agreement with the ruling", but you are giving Bush and the Republican Congress a free pass on their participation in the matter.

Let me ask it plainly:

Did the SCOTUS totally miss the boat with this ruling? If they did, was Bush in the wrong for signing it into law in the first place, KNOWING that it was un-Constitutional? And was the Congress in the wrong for passing a piece of legislation that clearly violates the First Amendment in the first place?

[Jim Robinson]

I believe that during the campaign, Bush ill-advisedly promised to sign a campaign finance reform bill if delivered to his desk. Probably some kind of compromise with McCain. And who knows? Without that compromise, we may very well have had President Gore.

Again, it doesn't excuse a bad bill, but I don't think the ^conservative Republicans actually had majority control when this passed. In fact, I believe the Democrats had majority control of the senate at the time.

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=34

In the House it passed 240 yea to 189 nay with 6 not voting (5 of those Republican). Almost all of the Democrats voted for it and very few Republicans. The vast majority of the Republicans (178) voted no, while only 11 Democrats voted against it. Only 41 Republicans voted for the bill, but a whopping 198 Democrats voted yes.

It passed the Senate 59 to 41. All but two of the Senate Democrats plus McCain and 11 rinos voted for the bill. Again, the vast majority of the Republican senators voted against it.

In sumamry, the vast majority of the Democrats along with the help of a relatively small minority of Rinos passed the bill.

Yes, President Bush should've vetoed it, and that was a major mistake as far as I'm concerned, but there is no mistaking the fact that this was a basically a DEMOCRAT passed bill.

The conclusion is not that we should abandon the Republicans, the most of whom did not support this fiasco, but we should boot the jackass Democrats, the majority of whom did.

And there's no way we should boot Bush. That'd only make matters much worse. We lose the presidency, we lose the majority and we'll lose big time to a liberal activist judiciary for the next 40 years. Do not make the mistake of turning the majority power back over to the Democrats. Enough already! Vote the rat bastards out!

[woodyinscc]

woodyinscc is "breathing a sigh of relief" over it,

Out of context, I was breathing a sigh of relief because in signing the Bill he successfully neutered the political maelstrom against him. You are right that because the SCOTUS made a horrendous decision, President Bush's decision turned out to be a Faustian deal.

[woodyinscc]

woodyinscc is "breathing a sigh of relief" over it,

Out of context, I was breathing a sigh of relief because in signing the Bill he successfully neutered the political maelstrom against him. You are right that because the SCOTUS made a horrendous decision, President Bush's decision turned out to be a Faustian deal.

[onyx]

It's late and I am likely too tired to properly respond to your inquisition tonight.

Did the SCOTUS totally miss the boat with this ruling? If they did, was Bush in the wrong for signing it into law in the first place, KNOWING that it was un-Constitutional? And was the Congress in the wrong for passing a piece of legislation that clearly violates the First Amendment in the first place?

Too easy: Yes, Yes, and Yes. The best legal minds in the country misread SCOTUS. Sandra Day O'Conner went with the Left.

Electing Republicans is the only possible prevention we have against a democrat president appointing more Lefties to SCOTUS. Bush merits a second term and a 62 majority in the US Senate... two extra, because at least two of the damn yankee Republicans always drift Left.

[woodyinscc]

This was the first piece of legislation brought up by Daschle after Jumping Jim Jeffords gave control of the Senate to the dims. Along with the press, Daschle and McCain, President Bush was enduring full court pressure. The enviro's were squeesing him hard on their phony arsenic issue at the same time. Once again with a complicit press. What is amazing is that out of 25 issues on the radar screen, CFR ranked 17th. Shows you the obvious bias of the mainstream press.

[A CA Guy]

There is a chance of a change in ruling here. The SCOTUS invited more proof of this being against the freedom of speech.
I thought they had made all the arguments, but seems the invite to revisit this suggests there is an opening still to do so.

I am also disappointed in the court. Kind of makes me realize how lucky we all were to NOT have them rule 100% in favor of Gore in 2000 because they are OUT-There!