Supreme Court loosens restrictions of McCain-Feingold campaign finance law

[TheBluesMan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campaign_finance_12

Court allows issue ads near elections

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
ADVERTISEMENT

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

The decision could lead to a bigger role for corporations, unions and other interest groups in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.

The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing to go in allowing issue ads.

Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision.

Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said only that the Wisconsin group's ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads and are not covered by the court's 2003 decision.

<snip>

Read more at the link.

A step in the right direction, IMO, and more proof of the importance of electing someone who will appoint conservative justices to the SCOTUS.

-Dave

 

[TheBluesMan]

McCain comments...

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccain-regrettable-decision-2007-06-25.html

McCain: 'Regrettable' decision
By Alexander Bolton and Klaus Marre
June 25, 2007

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Monday called the Supreme Court’s decision to weaken part of his campaign finance law “regrettable.”

However, the presidential hopeful pointed out that the 5-4 decision leaves intact the main part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, most commonly referred to as McCain-Feingold.

“It is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election,” McCain said. “It is important to recognize, however, that the Court’s decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns.”

His sponsorship of this free-speech curtailing law is the biggest reason he will never get my vote.

 

[tube_ee]

Good ruling, but...

There's a larger issue that needs to be addressed. That is the influence of donors on legislation.

The current system is nothing other than legalized bribery. The legislators have defined bribery so narrowly that unless you're an idiot, Duke Cunningham / William Jefferson kind of stupid, you can take as much money as you can lay your grubby little paws on, and do whatever the donors want you to do in return, and never commit a crime.

So here's my idea:

Only individuals can donate anything to anyone. You can only give money to a candidate for a position that will represent you. Congressmen can only solicit donations form their districts, Senators from their states. The limits for these contributions should be set low enough that a working family can afford to max out. Having more money doesn't get you extra votes, and it shouldn't get you extra influence either. The same limits and restrictions should apply to the parties. Everything else is bribery.

Full, immediate, online disclosure of every dime collected by everyone. Where it came from, how much, and, to the extent possible, the financial interest of the donors in the decisions the legislator will be making.

Ban paid lobbying. If you want to exercise your First Amendment right to petition your government, get off your keister and go do it yourself. You haven't lost any rights, you just don't get to pay someone else to do it for you.

Also, remove all of the legal barriers that prevent third-party candidates from competing on an equal footing. Any debate must include every person legally registered as a candidate for the office in question.

Or... Voluntary public funding of campaigns. If you agree to accept no outside contributions, you can draw from public money to fund your campaign. If your opponents do not, you get a match for every dollar they spend. If giving money to candidates doesn't yield an advantage, you've removed much of the incentive for buying legislators.

Government shouldn't be for sale. Our is, and that's not OK.

--Shannon

 

[SecDef]

Just a reminder that this makes it easier to buy an election.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

read "Freedomnomics" by Lott

+1

--j

 

[TheBluesMan]

Just a reminder that this makes it easier to buy an election.

The other side of the coin is that this makes it easier for Americans to have their political opinion heard when it really matters.

Or do you favor restricting the freedom of political speech when it is most necessary and effective?

-Dave

 

[FirstFreedom]

I have been so utterly shocked and saddened by the previous case upholding the obvious attack on the constitution known as mccain feingold, that this is truly a breath of fresh air - there may be a chink in the armor.

I just cannot fathom how a justice in their shoes (the 4 in the minority) could POSSIBLY think that the following is somehow NOT protected by the 1st Amendment:

1. Purely political speech criticizing political platforms & viewpoints (as opposed to obscenity, etc.), which righly enjoys the strongest possible protection under the 1A (traditionally anyway);

2. Directed at public figures - ones running for office, no less!

3. 60 days before an election (is there a BETTER time for political speech directed at candidates?).

I just don't get it.... or more likely, the justices just don't get it (the dissenters in this case).

It will be VERY interesting when the NRA gets taken to task by someone alleging that "NRA News" violates mccain feingold - an assertion and subsequent fight alleging that they are somehow different than ABC & NBC will smoke out the truth about this nonsensical non-distinction between news agencies that get a blanket exception, and others (citizen's groups like NRA and Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence - neither of which should be silenced as they are by mccain feingold travesty of justice). NRA is doing EXACTLY the right thing to set up nicely for a challenge, with their NRA News program - gawd bless them.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees

That part is *extraordinarily* interesting. How do you THINK Alito and Roberts might react to that? The insanely ironic part being to urge the voters to contact Russ Feingold!

 

[crowbeaner]

How about all the Hollyweird contributions to the Governor of Clintonia's campaign last year? Why in HE|| are actors donating money all the way across the country in a STATE election? Did the governor's campaign return the money? What do YOU think? Puhlease. Just wait untill the Wicked Witch of Westchester gets wound up.

 

[Silver Bullet]

A step in the right direction, IMO, and more proof of the importance of electing someone who will appoint conservative justices to the SCOTUS.

Glad I voted for Bush.

 

[joab]

A step in the right direction, IMO, and more proof of the importance of electing someone who will appoint conservative justices to the SCOTUS.

Were these the same justices that allowed the law to stand in the first place

 

[theberettaman]

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

In what journalism class do they teach about injecting an opinion into a so called "news" piece???????

 

[joab]

In what journalism class do they teach about injecting an opinion into a so called "news" piece???????

Any class that teaches you how to report on a supreme court decision, because that opinion is entered into the record for following generations to adhere to and because the entire article is actually about that opinion

Noun 1. legal opinion - the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"

 

[armedandsafe]

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

This is what was written. It contains the author's personal opinion. This is not known as good journalism.

Chief Justice John Roberts [snip} wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

This is fact, as it is properly reported by an honest journalist.

... , joined by his conservative allies,

This is personal opinion, which is not proper to include in a properly written news story.

My father would have frowned at me, had I turned in such when writting for the newspaper he owned. My high school journalism teacher would have kept me after hours and demanded a retraction and 500 page essay on proper journalism. My editor (on more than one major newspapers) would have demoted me to covering metermaids. My Uncle would have whacked me upside the head, if I had ever worked under him at the LA Times.

Ah, well. I grew up and started work in a time when the truth was honored.

Pops

 

[applesanity]

Ban paid lobbying. If you want to exercise your First Amendment right to petition your government, get off your keister and go do it yourself. You haven't lost any rights, you just don't get to pay someone else to do it for you.

um.....

 

[Al Norris]

Pops, I remember when the first paragraph of a news report had to contain the who, what, when and where. It was to be written in clear and concise terms. If the why and how were known, those were for paragraphs after the initial news. A reporter was never, ever to editorialize with his own opinions. Journalism 101.

Sadly, I don't believe they teach this anymore.

Back on topic. There is now a chink in the glass armor of the McCain-Feingold house. We can hope the original 5-4 ruling will continue to develop more cracks.

 

[Fremmer]

William Jefferson kind of stupid

Now there's a good description of dumb....

 

[joab]

joined by his conservative allies,

This is where you can tell me
RIF dude RIF

Got hung up on the word opinion and thought , oh never mind
RIF dude RIF

 

[FirstFreedom]

OK, I'm losing my mind. Sorry for the re-post. I had forgotten that I had known about this - for some reason I thought the final decision was new - I guess because this month's NRA magazine had a big story on it. I had it in my mind that it was on appeal but not yet decided. Beginnings of dementia, I suppose. Mea culpa. Maybe I was really tired when I saw and replied to the initial thread. Dunno....

But, the 2000s have not been good for the people's rights, with Raich, Kelo, and McConnel all being decided between 2003 and 2005 - at least one of three of those travesties of justice, McConnel vs. FEC, has been overturned with WRTL vs. FEC.

I think that the importance of this new decision can NOT be overstated. It's perhaps the most important case for freedom, and the people's rights in many decades.