Supremes uphold McCain-Feingold!

Ned · December 10, 2003, 18:17

Yes, no more soft money! Yes, no more attack adds by unions and other interest groups in the weeks before the election. Free speech is less important that stopping corruption!

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/02-1674.pdf

JUSTICE STEVENS and JUSTICE O?CONNOR delivered the Court's
opinion with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, concluding that the
statute?s two principal, complementary features?Congress? effort to
plug the soft-money loophole and its regulation of electioneering
communications?must be upheld in the main.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect
to miscellaneous BCRA Title III and IV provisions, concluding that
the District Court?s judgment with respect to these provisions must
be affirmed.

The District Court's decision upholding BCRA §311?s expansion
of FECA §318(a) to include mandatory ectioneeringcommunications-
disbursements disclosure is affirmed because such inclusion bears a sufficient relationship to the important governmental interest of ?shed[ding] the light of publicity? on campaign financing, Buckley, 424 U. S., at 81. Assuming, as the Court must, that FECA §318 is valid both to begin with and as amended by BCRA §311?s amendments other than the electioneering-communications inclusion, the latter inclusion is not itself unconstitutional. P. 9. 3.
BCRA §318?which forbids individuals ?17 years old or younger?
to make contributions to candidates and political parties, 2
U. S. C. A. §441k?violates the First Amendment rights of minors,
see, e.g., Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.

STEVENS and O?CONNOR, JJ., delivered the opinion of the Court with
respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and
BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the
Court with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, in which O?CONNOR,
SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, in which STEVENS,
GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined except with respect to BCRA §305, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §§304, 305, 307,316, 319, and 403(b). BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Title V, in which STEVENS, O?CONNOR, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, and concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, except for BCRA §§311 and 318, concurring in the result with respect to BCRA §318, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II, and dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I, V, and §311, in which opinion SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, II?A, and II?B. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined, in which SCALIA, J., joined except to the extent the opinion upholds new FECA §323(e) and BCRA §202, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §213. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA §305, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined.

Sava · December 10, 2003, 18:22

good

now we just need a limit on individual donations... I say a $500 cap per individual per campaign. Sorry Bushie, no more $2,000 dollar a plate dinners. But that won't happen. Dare we prevent rich people and corporations from having more political power than average citizens.

chequita guevara · December 10, 2003, 18:23

It's irrelevent. The Repugs have already found away around it, and the Dumbocrats have copied them. It's called a 527.

Sava · December 10, 2003, 18:24

no che, they are Repukes...

I like "dumbocrats"

OzzyKP · December 10, 2003, 18:26

Well at least they struck down the ban on minor contributions. 9-0 too! Yay!

Kirnwaffen · December 10, 2003, 22:28

MSNBC is reporting that the NRA is considering becoming a news outlet to 'get their message out' in response to this decision.

Nubclear · December 10, 2003, 22:30

"The EVIL COMMUNISTS, by electing Dean into the whitehouse, are TRYING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY!!! QUICKLY, GO KILL THEM BEFORE THEY KILL YOU!!!!"

Berzerker · December 10, 2003, 22:33

So much for free speech, France, will you please come get your statue of liberty? We don't deserve it...

Bosh · December 10, 2003, 22:38

You're remarkably ignorant, aren't you CT?

(go look up Dean's stand on guns)

Drake Tungsten · December 10, 2003, 22:45

Hooray!

gopher · December 10, 2003, 22:50

Free speech? How in the heck is massive, unregulated monies given to political parties in the form of an "issue ad" that cannot say 7 certain words be classified as a form of public debate or regulated opinions? Do the little green pieces of paper talk? What I find very ironic is that most of the people who classify the issue ads as free speech turn around and call for a ban on flag burning. Jigga what?

DinoDoc · December 10, 2003, 22:54

Quote:

...

This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525 (2001), dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U. S. 514 (2001), and sexually explicit cable programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national party use of “soft” money to fund “issue ads” that incumbents find so offensive.

...

Oerdin · December 10, 2003, 23:01

I'm not sorry to see the politicians lose a bit of their feed trough but it is strange how they would strike down child porn laws then uphold laws banning political speech for several weeks leading up to an election.

Ned · December 10, 2003, 23:04

DinoDoc, what we expect is vigorous debate from the candidates.

Whoha · December 10, 2003, 23:04

Bad news all around.

Berzerker · December 10, 2003, 23:08

The Alien and Sedition Act II

gopher -

Quote:

Free speech? How in the heck is massive, unregulated monies given to political parties in the form of an "issue ad" that cannot say 7 certain words be classified as a form of public debate or regulated opinions? Do the little green pieces of paper talk?

The money isn't unregulated, and yes, the issue is free speech. Do you think the Framers believed free speech meant only expressing your opinion as long as no money was involved to spread your ideas? Would that apply to a free press as well?

Quote:

What I find very ironic is that most of the people who classify the issue ads as free speech turn around and call for a ban on flag burning. Jigga what?

Then use that argument on them, not me. And at least they advocate amending the Constitution to ban flag burning, here the SCOTUS has simply re-written the 1st Amendment....again.

Berzerker · December 10, 2003, 23:17

Quote:

I'm not sorry to see the politicians lose a bit of their feed trough

You have it backwards, this only empowers politicians more by suppressing critics. They didn't just ban certain forms of campaign financing which the parties will get around via loopholes, they made it illegal for certain special interests which include citizens' groups from running ads against politicians during the most relevant time during a campaign. Notice how the major candidates haven't been slowed down one bit when raising funds with these laws in place?

Quote:

but it is strange how they would strike down child porn laws then uphold laws banning political speech for several weeks leading up to an election.

They didn't strike down child porn laws, the SCOTUS ruled that porn involving non-existent children, i.e., fictional representations, art, etc., did not qualify as child porn since no child was used.

gopher · December 11, 2003, 01:19

Ah, but money is still allowed, Berz, just in limited amounts. You can still give $ to the candidate. But the issue is not individual donors, but of massive enterprizes who subvert the system through back-channels. The framers had no idea that massive conglomerates could simply dump massive funds into the warchest of politicians. Their equivelent would be the Hudson's Bay Company secretly financing the Whigs. Besides, the framers set a guideline to the Constitution, allowing it to be changed.

Do I think that free speech has been limited by the McCain-Feingold? No. Those organizations which contributed soft money can still be heard, and still represent the issues at hand. Has democracy become a bit more about the people? Hopefully. And that, my friends, is a victory for all.

Imran Siddiqui · December 11, 2003, 02:57

Way to go Supremes!! Only if we could have elected McCain in the last election

.

DinoDoc · December 11, 2003, 03:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only if we could have elected McCain in the last election

.

He's doing less damage to my rights where he is. I must say though. This decision is making me seriously consider rethinking my support for Lieberman considering the scary views he holds on another form of speech (ie video games). I was hoping the Court would clamp down on this sort of idiocy. Sadly I was mistaken.

Imran Siddiqui · December 11, 2003, 03:16

If by idiocy you mean great decision

.

Thankfully we forced Bush to sign this good law. Get interest groups out from buying politicians.

DinoDoc · December 11, 2003, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If by idiocy you mean great decision

.

No, I mean completely assanine and an offensive rewriting of the 1st Amendment that reeks of nothing more than a crass way to justify an incumbent protection act..

Imran Siddiqui · December 11, 2003, 15:29

Free speech can take a back seat to less corrupt politicians. The more money we can take out of politics the better. And besides, I don't even really consider it free speech anyway.

SlowwHand · December 11, 2003, 15:35

Fooled me. I thought this was a Diana Ross endorsement.

Caligastia · December 11, 2003, 15:37

Under this law, if a group of my friends and I (not that we would agree

) pooled our money we would not be able to use it to run a political ad. That's a restriction of free speech IMO.

DinoDoc · December 11, 2003, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Free speech can take a back seat to ...

You know what. I agree with you. Gaging groups like the ACLU and the NRA that wish to exercise thier right to be critical of the government is an excellent idea. I don't know why anyone ever thought of it before now. I also love the idea of letting the lunatics in Congress run the asylum when it comes to deciding the importance of free speech vs "reform."

Sprayber · December 11, 2003, 15:44

Appearence over substance is a Washington tradition....

Imran Siddiqui · December 11, 2003, 15:45

Quote:

Gaging groups like the ACLU and the NRA that wish to exercise thier right to be critical of the government is an excellent idea.

Yes, this is really gaging them. OMG, they can't run ads that mention politicians by name 30 days before the election (while of course they can do so before those 30 days as much as they want)! How horrible, the sky is falling!

Really... I thought you were above this Chicken Little nonsense.