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.
A Soft Money Ban Is Constitutional
The McCain-Feingold bill would ban "soft money" contributions to political parties from corporations, unions and individuals. Soft money is given in unlimited amounts for so-called "party-building activities." However, soft money is actually used to directly support candidates, thereby evading the strict contribution limits in federal campaign finance laws. For example, soft money paid for most of the $80 million in party TV ads on behalf of the presidential candidacies of George Bush and Al Gore, even though each got $67.5 million in federal financing to run their campaigns.
Some of those who oppose a ban on soft money contributions to political parties claim they do so because it violates the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and association. But in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court said it was constitutional to limit election contributions in order to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.
The overwhelming majority of soft money contributions come from corporate and union treasuries. Corporations and labor unions have been banned by law from contributing money in connection with federal elections since 1907 and 1947 respectively, and the Buckley v. Valeo decision on campaign finance did not question that prohibition. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the corporate ban in the 1990 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case. Thus, there is no chance that the Court would object to Congress upholding the prohibition on corporate and union contributions by forbidding the political parties from accepting soft money contributions from these entities.
The Court would similarly uphold a law banning soft money contributions by individual donors. The Court in Buckley upheld limits on individual contributions to candidates, parties and other political committees. A soft money ban would prevent evasion of those limits.
Finally, the Court would uphold the McCain-Feingold bill's ban on soft money contributions to state as well as national parties. Federal campaign law regulates contributions for joint national-state party activities in federal elections. A ban on state party soft money for federal elections is necessary to uphold these restrictions and to prevent national parties from evading a soft money ban by rechanneling the funds to state parties.
In a September 22, 1997 letter to Congress concerning the McCain-Feingold bill, 126 constitutional scholars declared that "Closing the loophole for soft money contributions is in line with the longstanding and constitutional ban on corporate and union contributions in federal elections and with limits on the size of individuals' contributions to amounts that are not corrupting."
Soft money is dirty money, and the Constitution does not protect it. Congress should therefore eliminate the disgraceful soft money loophole in the election laws. The First Amendment does not stand in the way.
Bill Kristol, Arianna Huffington, Matt Drudge, Bill Safire, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Fred Thompson, Jim Trafacant, John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Mark Sanford, "meandog"...
Some conservatives against:
Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh, Wes Prudin, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, Jesse Helms, Most misinformed FReepers...
Most misinformed FReepers...
What part of "Congress shall make no law" do you not understand, buttmunch? The only misinformed person here is you - enganging in Clintonian parsing of the concept of freedom of expression.
When the NY Times gives me FREE the number of column inches that Safire gets, I'll agree that money does not equal speech. Until that time, money does equal speech.
What part of "Congress shall make no law" do you not understand, buttmunch? The only misinformed person here is you - enganging in Clintonian parsing of the concept of freedom of expression.
Really? If so-called "campaign speech" (advertising) does indeed represent the Constitutional requirement of "free speech" then the advertising of such items as liquor, cigarettes and condoms should also be allowed in ANY periodical or television. But would you really want that (considering there are certain periodicals and t.v. stations that can still reject such advertising as opposed to campaign ads)? Before you jump to conclusions instilled by such nitwits as Rush Limbull, read what CFR is all about. A good source is "Public Citizen".
After we wade through the arrogance of your post (misinfomrmed freepers.....please)we must set you straight with a few facts: (1)The Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that money = free speech. If McCain-Foolsgold ever sees the light of day, it WILL be struck down. (2) McCain is NOT a conservative...he supported the attack on the tobacco industry, attacks on the rich (tax cuts lingo sounds just like a democrat), and so-called campaing finance reform that is also supported by every criminal that has ALREADY broken the exisiting laws, including Clinton (enough said). (3) Campaign finance reform is not in the top 40 list of concerns in polls (we need tax cuts, not limits of free speech.)
1)The Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that money = free speech. If McCain-Foolsgold ever sees the light of day, it WILL be struck down. (2) McCain is NOT a conservative...he supported the attack on the tobacco industry, attacks on the rich (tax cuts lingo sounds just like a democrat), and so-called campaing finance reform that is also supported by every criminal that has ALREADY broken the exisiting laws, including Clinton (enough said). (3) Campaign finance reform is not in the top 40 list of concerns in polls (we need tax cuts, not limits of free speech.)
1. Wrong! The SC has never ruled on this. 2. Wrong again, he has a 100 percent pro-life voting record and an 87 percent ACU (American Conservative Union) rating; and 3. While CFR is not the top polling issue currently, it is gaining ground (gun and abortion issues also not in the top 40 does this mean people don't care about them?)...See you REALLY are a misinformed FReeper. Turn off Limbull and think for yourself!
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit independent party expenditures on behalf of their favorite candidate. It is the coordinated campaign expenditures that can be limited. Bad decision on freedom of association grounds, and likely wouldn't survive the recent Boy Scouts jurisprudence, but in fact there is case law out there stating that money = speech.
In 1996, the Supreme Court, addressing a complaint brought by the FEC against the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Commission, explicitly held that the First Amendment prohibited application of the Federal Election Campaign Act's party expenditure caps to independent expenditures by the party. Consequently, so long as the party does not coordinate campaign spending with the candidate, it is free to support the candidate of its choice without caps on spending.
And in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court held that caps on independent expenditures were unconstitutional. Although that court did hold that the government has a compelling interest (namely -- to prevent the appearance or actuality of corruption of the political process through massive contributions to single candidates, much like the bribery statutes) in limiting contributions by individuals to campaigns, it pretty clearly said that the government cannot limit the amount an individual or group spends to promote its own issue or even its favored candidate. And there's also a pretty strong recognition that money, as the element necessary to purchase expensive advertising time on television and space in print, is necessary for effective political speech and therefore independent expenditures are protected.
"Misinformed FReepers." Yeah, right.
Speaking as one who is informed rather than mis-informed: "The ban is not constitutional." Whether it will be passed or if the courts let it stand is another question. The government will always try to suppress speech. The excuses vary from "pornography" to "hate speech" to "campaign speech" to "criticism of the King" (but I digress.)
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit independent party expenditures on behalf of their favorite candidate.
The Supreme Court has not said per se that money=speech and it has never ruled on McCain-Feingold (as some FReepers are avowing) because it has never had a test case--how could it when the bill has not become law yet?
The Supreme Court has not said per se that money=speech and it has never ruled on McCain-Feingold (as some FReepers are avowing) because it has never had a test case--how could it when the bill has not become law yet?
When the Supreme Court comes out in Buckley and specifically recognizes the importance of political donations in funding effective modern campaigns, saying that they haven't specifically made the money=speech holding is irrelevant. Money itself does not strictly equal speech, but where limiting the money limits the means of speech without a compelling government interest, that violates the first amendment.
The only reason the court upheld the limits on individual contributions to individual campaigns was because the court recognized a compelling state interest in preventing the appearance of corruption through direct contributions to candidates. No such interest exists with respect to soft money contributions to political parties that can be addressed with narrowly tailored measures that will not impact legitimate expression. In other words, any limits on soft money will necessarily be overbroad in that they will affect vastly more legitimate political expressions and freedom of association than would be permissible under the first amendment. This is especially true since the court's refocus on the right of association in the boy scouts case last year means it is very likely that the arguments made in Buckley with respect to assocition with particular candidates will not be allowed to carry over to association in political parties.
Buckley held that your right of free association with a particular candidate (with its corresponding right to give him/her all your money to speak for you) was trumped by the compelling state interest in preventing corruption or the apperance thereof. But that compelling state interest is too diffuse, and the proposed remedies cannot be narrowly tailored, when you're merely exercising your right of free association with a political party and giving them all of your money. By definition, soft money is given to an association, not to a candidate. That one-step removal is exactly why Buckley invalidated nearly every spending/contribution limit in the original FECA, and it will continue to bar the garbage being debated in congress today.
When the Supreme Court comes out in Buckley and specifically recognizes the importance of political donations in funding effective modern campaigns, saying that they haven't specifically made the money=speech holding is irrelevant. Money itself does not strictly equal speech, but where limiting the money limits the means of speech without a compelling government interest, that violates the first amendment. The only reason the court upheld the limits on individual contributions to individual campaigns was because the court recognized a compelling state interest in preventing the appearance of corruption through direct contributions to candidates. No such interest exists with respect to soft money contributions to political parties that can be addressed with narrowly tailored measures that will not impact legitimate expression. In other words, any limits on soft money will necessarily be overbroad in that they will affect vastly more legitimate political expressions and freedom of association than would be permissible under the first amendment. This is especially true since the court's refocus on the right of association in the boy scouts case last year means it is very likely that the arguments made in Buckley with respect to assocition with particular candidates will not be allowed to carry over to association in political parties. Buckley held that your right of free association with a particular candidate (with its corresponding right to give him/her all your money to speak for you) was trumped by the compelling state interest in preventing corruption or the apperance thereof. But that compelling state interest is too diffuse, and the proposed remedies cannot be narrowly tailored, when you're merely exercising your right of free association with a political party and giving them all of your money. By definition, soft money is given to an association, not to a candidate. That one-step removal is exactly why Buckley invalidated nearly every spending/contribution limit in the original FECA, and it will continue to bar the garbage being debated in congress today.
Look I'm no legal scholar but such arguments are really stretching the bounds of imagination because there is no real way of telling what the supreme court will do...we all were dead sure (FReepers that is) that the line item veto that the Contract With America had gotten was a sure thing until the court struck it down...then, we were sure that the court would deal the SC of the State of Florida a good old-fashioned unanimous hand-slapping. It didn't happen, remember.
IMHO, the SC will eventually see "campaign" free speech as what it really is: advertising. And the SC has apparently given the nod toward limiting some forms of advertising (take the tobacco for instance). Succinctly, the 1st Amendment exists for the freedom of speech to every individual citizen (but not groups unions, advocacy--NARAL, NORML, NOW--corporations).
I'm surprised that Traficant supports this.
Look I'm no legal scholar but such arguments are really stretching the bounds of imagination because there is no real way of telling what the supreme court will do...
Well, you started this thread by asserting, among other things:
"Thus, there is no chance that the Court would object to Congress upholding the prohibition on corporate and union contributions by forbidding the political parties from accepting soft money contributions from these entities."
And that
"The Court would similarly uphold a law banning soft money contributions by individual donors. The Court in Buckley upheld limits on individual contributions to candidates, parties and other political committees. A soft money ban would prevent evasion of those limits."
"Finally, the Court would uphold the McCain-Feingold bill's ban on soft money contributions to state as well as national parties."
Now you're saying that there's "no real way of telling what the supreme court will do . . . ."
Well, which is it? You previously suggested that you knew exactly what the Supreme Court would do.
Look I'm no legal scholar but such arguments are really stretching the bounds of imagination because there is no real way of telling what the supreme court will do...we all were dead sure (FReepers that is) that the line item veto that the Contract With America had gotten was a sure thing until the court struck it down...then, we were sure that the court would deal the SC of the State of Florida a good old-fashioned unanimous hand-slapping. It didn't happen, remember
Look, I am a legal scholar. I did not think that the line item veto was constitutional, and I knew that the liberals on the SC are party hacks and wouldn't back bush's position no matter what. You're right -- in the end it's a guessing game, but the guesses have to be based upon an informed analysis of relevant precedent. Anything else and you end up in a nasty jurisprudential quagmire called "critical legal studies" which theorizes that law is just based upon what the judge had for breakfast that morning and that rules cannot be followed.
The Supreme Court has only recently begun to recognize limits on government power. But a ban on soft money contributions to political parties is so far over the line, that I think even the liberals on this court are going to have a problem with it. Based upon my admittedly cursory reading of the cases this afternoon after your post, I think there are at least 5, if not 6, votes that would stomp this ban hard. Even Breyer and Ginsburg will probably have difficulties swallowing it.
Last, you're the one who came out swinging with your absolutist statements that the soft money ban is constitutional. Then you called many of us misguided for disagreeing with you. Now you're accusing me of stretching imagination because there's no telling what the Supreme Court will do. All I gave you was a reasoned analysis of what Supreme Court precedent requires. Should I now assume that you've stepped back from your blanket statement that the "soft money ban IS constitutional" and adopted a less stringent position that under some circumstances a soft money ban might be "constitutional" because we can't tell what the Supremes will do?
You're in over your head on this issue. Bad puppy.
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |