A Moment of Silence

[Guest MikeSC]

The First Amendment died with this. EASILY the worst thing Bush has signed. The worst bill signed in MANY years.

 

Supreme Court Upholds Political Money Law

'Soft Money' Ban, Ad Limits Maintained

By Fred Barbash

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 10, 2003; 2:22 PM

 

The Supreme Court today upheld the most important provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act of 2002, an attempt to control the unregulated, uncontained and often underground system of fund-raising and spending that now dominates federal election campaigns.

 

The decision, allowing a ban on "soft money" and restrictions on "issue ads" that benefit individual candidates, means the current election campaign can proceed without interruption under the new law, according to attorneys on both sides of the case.

 

The law sought to control the influence of money in politics. It was aimed primarily at two widespread practices designed to get around existing campaign disclosure laws and contribution limitations.

 

It prohibited national parties and federal candidates from raising and spending so-called "soft money," donations that are not subject to federal limits because they technically go to state political parties.

 

And it clamped new regulations on "issue ads," commercials financed by interest groups, purportedly to advance their causes, but which critics have said are thinly disguised partisan promotions of particular candidates for office. While it did not ban any kind of ad, the law required that the funding of "electioneering communications" be publicly disclosed just as other campaign spending is disclosed. It defined "electioneering" ads as those that run in close proximity to scheduled elections and refer to a particular candidate or are aimed at a particular candidates constituency.

 

Challengers to the law said it violated First Amendment rights of free speech in political campaigns.

 

But the justices upheld all of the major new restrictions by 5-to-4 votes.

 

Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority on the main issues, said that Congress had carefully and successfully tailored the new law to avoid constitutional problems after determining that the current system of campaign finance led to corruption, or the appearance of corruption.

 

"The idea that large contributions to a national party can corrupt or create the appearance of corruption of federal candidates and officeholders is neither novel nor implausible," the majority said. "There is substantial evidence in these cases to support Congress' determination that contributions of soft money give rise to corruption and the appearance of corruption."

 

The court said Congress also has power to act against all or any "circumventions," of campaign laws, whether in the form of "soft money" or sham "issue ads."

 

The justices rejected as "unpersuasive" arguments that the new provisions intrude on constitutionally protected rights of free speech and free political association. They similarly rejected claims that the soft money restrictions cut too deeply into the prerogatives of the states to regulate elections.

 

On the main provisions of the law, Stevens and O'Connor were joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

 

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented from the primary holdings, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

 

The broad philosophical dividing line on campaign finance regulation revolves around the extent to which money is regarded as "speech."

 

Challengers of the law -- and dissenters today -- believe that campaign activity, including the deployment of campaign money, deserves the same high level of protection accorded to, say, campaign speeches and debates. Their position was reinforced by the 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which struck down parts of an earlier campaign reform act because it impinged on the right of individuals to express themselves by giving money.

 

On the other side are those in the majority today, who simply do not take the speech-money equation that far. They believe Congress has great leeway to regulate activities once it has established that they may corrupt the political process.

 

"The evidence in the record," wrote Stevens and O'Connor, "shows that candidates and donors alike have in fact exploited the soft-money loophole, the former to increase their prospects of election and the latter to create debt on the part of officeholders. . . . For their part, lobbyists, CEOs, and wealthy individuals alike all have candidly admitted donating substantial sums of soft money to national committees not on ideological grounds, but for the express purpose of securing influence over federal officials."

 

Scalia, on the other hand, condemned today's outcome as a First Amendment disaster. "This is a sad day for the freedom of speech," he wrote. "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 . . . 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."

 

There were eleven different challenges to the law, all of which were consolidated in today's ruling, called McConnell, United States Senator, et al., v. Federal Election Commission et al. The court worked with uncommon speed to get the decision published before the actual beginning of the formal election year, 2004. On only one minor matter did the challengers prevail. The court said congress went too far in banning contributions by minors. This provision was designed to prevent adults from funneling money through children.

 

"I think the result is disappointing but not altogether unexpected," said Jan Baran, one of the attorneys representing the main challenger of the law, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And the 5-4 decision reflects how evenly divided opinion is on these issues."

 

"I'm thrilled by the court's decision," said Randolph Moss, who represented the chief senate sponsors, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) "It's a great victory for the parties defending the law but really for the country. The court has reaffirmed Congress's ability to regulate campaign finance in a way that protects the democratic process."

 

The new rules have been in force during the early stages of preparation for the 2004 elections for president and Congress. A lower court panel of federal judges had issued its own, fractured ruling on the new law earlier this year, but the Supreme Court got the last word.

 

The two parties hauled in nearly $500 million in soft money in the two-year election cycle that ended in 2000, most of it from large corporations, labor unions and a relative handful of wealthy individuals.

 

The idea of "soft money" picked up steam in the 1980s in response to federal election laws enacted after Watergate limiting the size of individual campaign contributions and requiring extensive disclosure.

 

Lawyers for both parties found that channeling money to state political parties for their own activities could provide an alternative way of financing campaigns that was not subject to the federal law. The parties could and did use the money for such things as "get out the vote" drives and ads that directly benefited party presidential candidates.

 

Since then, literally billions of dollars have been spent in this fashion, including contributions from individuals far in excess of the amounts permitted under federal law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...003Dec10_2.html

 

When people on the left wonder what people mean when they complain about courts writing laws rather than interpreting them --- this is a good example. A bill that is a CLEAR violation of the First Amendment is UPHELD.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Scalia's dissent was particularly on point and cuts rather to the quick, as is usual with him.

 

[Left-leaning members of the board, please feel free to rip him a new asshole because of his politics - but please don't neglect the fact that he has a rather brilliant legal mind.]

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

When people on the left wonder what people mean when they complain about courts writing laws rather than interpreting them --- this is a good example. A bill that is a CLEAR violation of the First Amendment is UPHELD.

-=Mike

 

Please back up -- in your own words -- how it's a clear violation of the First Amendment. Cite precedent where applicable.

[Downhome 0]

*silence*

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

[Left-leaning members of the board, please feel free to rip him a new asshole because of his politics - but please don't neglect the fact that he has a rather brilliant legal mind.]

 

Of course he does; he was appointed to the Supreme Court, after all. The only justice that I'd argue is not a brilliant legal mind on the Court is Thomas.

[Guest MikeSC]

When people on the left wonder what people mean when they complain about courts writing laws rather than interpreting them --- this is a good example. A bill that is a CLEAR violation of the First Amendment is UPHELD.

-=Mike

 

Please back up -- in your own words -- how it's a clear violation of the First Amendment. Cite precedent where applicable.

The bill puts restrictions on ads any group can place within 60 days of an election (you know, when voters pay attention) that is negative towards any candidate. The Court should hold political speech to the same level they hold freedom of the press --- something they CLEARLY are not doing here.

 

And Scalia's dissenting opinion was dead-on balls accurate --- and cold as heck.

 

Hmm, right there --- more back-up than 90% of anything you post here.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Actually, you managed to say absolutely nothing.

 

Read the opinion. They explain exactly why the strict scrutiny standard does not apply to negative political ads. You stated a broad opinion of your OWN right here, and you've done NOTHING to back it up except "SCALIA IS RIGHT LOL"

 

So, by all means, you're full of shit.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, you managed to say absolutely nothing.

 

Read the opinion. They explain exactly why the strict scrutiny standard does not apply to negative political ads. You stated a broad opinion of your OWN right here, and you've done NOTHING to back it up except "SCALIA IS RIGHT LOL"

 

So, by all means, you're full of shit.

I'm "full of shit"?

 

OK. Fine.

-=Mike

...Who has realized that Tyler is a slightly less obnoxious version of Kamui

[Justice 0]

I honestly have doubts on this whole decision. I personally think the elections ad one was a bad part because how does one tell if an ad is really that negative? If an ad focuses on a person's past and is truthful, is that considered negative because while true it paints a bad picture of the person? I'll read the entire decision over break (Tyler, how the fuck can you speak as well? Did you read all 298 pages of the decision already? Not saying you are wrong, but I highly doubt that you've looked at this indepth enough to make a real decision, to be fair), though I can't find the dissenting opinion yet. It's a bit frustrating, actually. At any rate, I'm very leery of this whole thing but I'd need to really look at this to make an educated decision.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Did you read all 298 pages of the decision already? Not saying you are wrong, but I highly doubt that you've looked at this indepth enough to make a real decision, to be fair

 

Actually, I just finished reading the entire thing. I've been following the case closely, as it relates to my mock court case in a constitutional law class. So yes, in fact, I do know what the fuck I'm talking about in this respect.

 

though I can't find the dissenting opinion yet.

 

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/fec/mccon...ec121003opn.pdf

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

As I'm sure you conservatives are most interested in Scalia's dissent (as is usual), I'll give you a hint: it starts on page 168.

[Justice 0]

Did you read all 298 pages of the decision already? Not saying you are wrong, but I highly doubt that you've looked at this indepth enough to make a real decision, to be fair

 

Actually, I just finished reading the entire thing. I've been following the case closely, as it relates to my mock court case in a constitutional law class. So yes, in fact, I do know what the fuck I'm talking about in this respect.

Wow. Considering it just came out today, color me impressed.

 

And fuck, you gave me the PDF form one. I'd found that one, but I fucking HATE them. *Searches for a version he can copy to word to ready so the scrolling doesn't irritate the fuck out of him* I hate Adobe and it's jerky as fuck scrolling. Hurts my eyes when you have to read 298 pages of it...

 

Edit:

As I'm sure you conservatives are most interested in Scalia's dissent (as is usual), I'll give you a hint: it starts on page 168.

 

Oh, I found that. I'm more of a CJ Rehnquist fan myself, though. His starts on 280, it seems.

[Guest JMA]

...Who has realized that Tyler is a slightly less obnoxious version of Kamui

Now that's uncalled for.

 

And to be fair, you did incite that response from Tyler with what you said.

 

Hmm, right there --- more back-up than 90% of anything you post here.

You have to admit, that was rather juvenile.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Check Findlaw, they may have it up.

 

The reason I was forced to read it is because my case is tomorrow, and this directly affects my argument. I basically started reading it at about noon and finished up around four... and now I'm off again to write more crap.

 

EDIT: By "it" I mean the HTML format.

[Justice 0]

Ah frick, I hate this place. I always get lost looking for the HTML one ...

[NoCalMike 0]

How about entirely banning soft money altogether or put a cap on it across the board? Shouldn't major candidates have equal representation?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

That's what McCain-Feingold sought to do; that is, it sought to ban soft money.

[NoCalMike 0]

That's what McCain-Feingold sought to do; that is, it sought to ban soft money.

well it certainly would be nice. Equating "free speech" with "donating" millions of dollars to a candidate is certainly almost as clever as it is hilarious. The problem is, it is not DONATING and everyone knows it, it is BUYING A CANDIDATE, and it should be banned.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Please back up -- in your own words -- how it's a clear violation of the First Amendment. Cite precedent where applicable.

Okay, how about this:

 

 

It's your money. You earned it. You should be able to do what you want with it. Well, okay, that's debatable. But free speech just got trampled here. Again.

 

 

 

I guess I should keep my eye out now for that NRA station, now.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

well it certainly would be nice. Equating "free speech" with "donating" millions of dollars to a candidate is certainly almost as clever as it is hilarious

You missed the other half of the bill.

 

Special interest groups aren't allowed to fund ads supporting/attacking candidates. News organizations are exempt. Now, all LOL2003s aside for this example, this means that Fox News Channel or another station (such as the proposed NRA station, which they want purely so they can air their idea of politics) could attack a candidate's record on issues, but a group can't buy airtime to defend the candidate.

 

It cuts into the freedom of speech and it basically limits campaigning at a cruicial time to whoever can afford an FCC license and get on a major carrier.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Equating "free speech" with "donating" millions of dollars to a candidate is certainly almost as clever as it is hilarious. The problem is, it is not DONATING and everyone knows it, it is BUYING A CANDIDATE, and it should be banned.

Personally, I think the media shouldn't be allowed to write about any public official in their editorial or opinion section -- it may give the appearance that the outlet has a bias against that candidate or perhaps the other person(s). Better yet, the media should stop ALL COVERAGE of an election 60 days before voters go to the polls...

[Guest SideFXs]

Better yet, the media should stop ALL COVERAGE of an election 60 days before voters go to the polls...

 

That's too simple a solution for politics. I just can't get enough of the biased coverage of liberal politicians.

Edited December 11, 2003 by SideFXs

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

Special interest groups aren't allowed to fund ads supporting/attacking candidates. News organizations are exempt.

anyone else oddly comfortable with this?

[Vyce 0]

Special interest groups aren't allowed to fund ads supporting/attacking candidates. News organizations are exempt.

anyone else oddly comfortable with this?

But it doesn't work. There are loopholes, and Jobber already mentioned a big one - all an interest group has to do is buy or own a "news organization" (whatever that is defined as), such as the considered NRA station.

[Guest Cerebus]

Special interest groups aren't allowed to fund ads supporting/attacking candidates. News organizations are exempt.

anyone else oddly comfortable with this?

But it doesn't work. There are loopholes, and Jobber already mentioned a big one - all an interest group has to do is buy or own a "news organization" (whatever that is defined as), such as the considered NRA station.

Or just be themselves (see CNN & FAUX News)

[Guest MikeSC]

That's what McCain-Feingold sought to do; that is, it sought to ban soft money.

well it certainly would be nice. Equating "free speech" with "donating" millions of dollars to a candidate is certainly almost as clever as it is hilarious. The problem is, it is not DONATING and everyone knows it, it is BUYING A CANDIDATE, and it should be banned.

Says who?

 

Why should a group be banned from giving money to whomever they wish? Why should groups be denied the right to air ads against a candidate they oppose?

 

Remove ALL restrictions and force total disclosure.

-=Mike

[Guest Ronixis]

The press now controls the country.

 

Enterainment Tonight/Access Hollywood just has become a news enity(s). The reason being is that they are a program that can promote a candiate (say a Balwin brother) but lets say Bill Orielly uses his cash, to air a ad 60 days before the election on a affilate of the station that airs the show supporting someone else (say Chuck Norris), he can not do so. That is utter bullshit.

 

This also hurts the Corpratation. (Of course- this helps if you a Viacom, or a AOL TW) mostly Non-Profit ones. This means that they must do more HARD money before the 60 day limit. They cant raise that amount of cash.

 

What does that mean for other Voices? What about the Internet? Is that gonna get hurt as well?

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

The press now controls the country.

 

As a member of the press, I find this quite untrue. A journalist has always had control of the country through agenda setting: we might not tell you what to think, but we sure do tell you what to think about.

 

And at this time, it is the mostly favorable view of Republicans while denouncing Democrats. It's why I get pissed off when someone says something like:

I just can't get enough of the biased coverage of liberal politicians.

 

If you meant positive bias, you are certainly dead wrong. Negative bias? Look at most news programs.

 

The only true program where a Republican got bashed on a news program was when Koppel had Condolezza (sp?) Rice on Newsline and asked her repeated questions on the restriction of civil liberties under the Patriot Act and all she ever responded with was "Well that all changed with 9/11." She never said anything of substance. Is it too much to ask?

 

The way I feel it should be: corporations, because the Supreme Court earlier ruled that they could be sued as if they were a person, should be allowed to donate to candidates. A spending limit should be there, definitely. And ALL donations should be reported to the general public. Front page news.

 

Speaking of politics: I'm surprised that there isn't a topic on how the new e-voting machine systems leave no paper trail, can be hacked by a high school freshman with no computer knowledge, and the company won't allow an investigation into it. Makes me feel confident...

[NoCalMike 0]

The way I feel it should be: corporations, because the Supreme Court earlier ruled that they could be sued as if they were a person, should be allowed to donate to candidates. A spending limit should be there, definitely. And ALL donations should be reported to the general public. Front page news.

I could live with that. Spending caps definately.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Special interest groups aren't allowed to fund ads supporting/attacking candidates. News organizations are exempt.

anyone else oddly comfortable with this?

Not really.

 

 

Pretend if I am running for a public office. Me. During the final stretch of my campaign, Bill O'Reilly finds out that I called him a media whore on TSM and starts badmouthing me every day in the last 60 days of the race. He's part of a legitimate news organization. I can't afford to buy time to defend myself, and if anyone chips in they're suddently a "special interest group" and are banned from buying ad time.

 

I can't just go on O'Reilly's show whenever I care to and defend myself from his attacks. I have no plan of recourse.