Saint Johnny B Posted December 11, 2003 Share Posted December 11, 2003 The US Supreme Court in a 5-to-4 vote upheld major portions of thr McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law. The best part is that they found that "money does not equal speech." One constitutional lawyer said, "No, money does not equal speech, it equals property." The government can regulate property such as zoning laws, so they can now regulate campaign money too. The opponents, esp the national political party heads are very upset, but it can mean that for a while, the process moves closer to the people, and that's a good thing. This can have a direct impact on the upcoming presidential election. Oh, and the Supreme Court used terms like "corruption" in their decision, they'd like to stop it. Me too. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted December 12, 2003 Author Share Posted December 12, 2003 What? No comment from the left, right, or middle? This is big deal. Check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted December 12, 2003 Author Share Posted December 12, 2003 No comments. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogfur Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I am initially happy at the outcome of the decision, and I wish you and yours a very safe, happy and love-filled holiday season. Woof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jode Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 One only needs to look at the list of plaintiffs to see how screwed this decision is. Any issue that brings together the NRA, NARAL, the Sierra Club, and the American Socialist Party on the same side of a lawsuit must be a monumentally bad idea, and this one is. The law says that no one can run an issue ad thirty days before a federal election. This means no ads attacking a candidate's position on anything - defense, environment, gun rights, civil rights, you name it. The [i]media,[/i] on the other hand, is free to comment however it likes during that period, and the [i]incumbent[/i] is free to say whatever he likes, but private citizens may not. In case anyone missed it, the First Amendment's protection of speech was not meant to be used to allow people to say "fuck" on TV. It is intended to protect [i]political[/i] speech - criticism of the government, in particular - and the way most people express their political opinions is through donations to candidates and advocacy groups, who run ads and hold rallies [i]on behalf of their donors.[/i] Under certain circumstances, these rights are now the exclusive province of journalists and incumbents. From Justice Scalia's dissent: "The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy." Now you've got the NRA trying to buy a radio station to get around the new law, and George Soros trying to outspend the Bush campaign all by himself. Money, like water, will seek its own level. Squeeze it out of politics in one place, and it will trickle into another. It won't go away, and it shouldn't. At least not like this. "I had to have something, and it wasn't there. I couldn't go down the street and buy it, so I built it." Les Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted December 12, 2003 Author Share Posted December 12, 2003 Well that's one side of the argument but you can read the entire US Supreme Court decision by going to C-SPAN.ORG and clicking on McConnell vs. FEC. Obviously there are two or more sides with the court ultimately upholding campaign spending limits. see: [url=http://www.c-span.org]www.c-span.org[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibescotty Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 So wait a minute. An issue that unites all the special interests against it is a bad thing? I'm kind of against all of the special interest groups myself. Sure they'll work to try and circumvent the law in some way, but that's not because the law is bad or a bad idea. That's because the special interest groups themselves are crooked politician buying machines that want to buy their issues into legislation. I like the idea and I hope that it levels the playing field and allows for a viable third party candidate. It might not succeed but it's worth trying. Worst case scenario is that we're back where we started. Double Posting since March 2002 Random Post Generator #26797 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibescotty Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I'm wondering which judges voted which way. Was it an even split between the conservative and liberal judges? Seems both sides are for and against it. Double Posting since March 2002 Random Post Generator #26797 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted December 12, 2003 Author Share Posted December 12, 2003 The radical right-wing judges went against campaign reform: Reinquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. Some consider Kennedy a moderate on some issues, anyway he swung with the right wingers. All the rest, including Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate to right-wing republican, voted in favor of campaign reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZsound Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 ha, ha, ha, ha, I have to laugh. "The radical right wing judges" and "the others". You are such a joker.. right wing means radical and everybody else is just "other". The ruling is a exercise in futility. It will stop nothing and it will do nothing. The attorneys for all the interested political parties and special interest groups are already hard at work figuring out how to circumvent the new ruling. Remember Al Gore and his Bhuddist contributions? Remember his statement "there is no controlling legal authority"? Guess what.. Nothing will change. And how can it be possible an extreme left wing whacko and his favorite extremist groups can yell loud and long about the liberties the Patriot Act takes away and then turn around and applaud a ruling that takes away our liberties? How very typical.. Mark G. "A man may fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame others" -- John Burroughs "I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." -- Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darklava Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 It's a good thing.Let's level the playing field a little more.their's a lot of good people that can't come up with the billions, so they don't participate.Wich is a shame. ;) The story of life is quicker then the blink of an eye, the story of love is hello, goodbye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted December 12, 2003 Author Share Posted December 12, 2003 I agree with the part that says "money does not equal speech, it equals property and can be regulated." Personally, I'm tired of the last minute attacks and negative ads funded by wealthy special interests. Instead, I favor real investigative reporting al la "Watergate." Free speech is alive and well under the ruling, you're talking here aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stranger Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I may be talking here, but my representative isn't listening to me. Now if I was wealthy, I could buy some influence. And not every rich person/corp/entity involved in politics is bad. How many special interests do you tend to support? The only problem with special interests is that corporations and rich people are the only ones who put real money into it. Special interests for the common man don't have the funds to compete. Or maybe we do? We just choose not to. You should have just put this in the Votes for sale thread. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Johnny B Posted December 13, 2003 Author Share Posted December 13, 2003 Campaign reform laws are intended to get the dirty money out of politics. I'm glad we are making a start at cleaning up the corruption. I once helped throw a corrupt democrat, a union boss, AND a corrupt republican small businessman out of office. They were both owned by the same big business and sold out the American people at every opportunity. It's hard to clean out corruption, but we all have to do our bit. This court ruling is a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jode Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]I agree with the part that says "money does not equal speech, it equals property and can be regulated." Personally, I'm tired of the last minute attacks and negative ads funded by wealthy special interests. Instead, I favor real investigative reporting al la "Watergate." Free speech is alive and well under the ruling, you're talking here aren't you?[/b][/quote]You can't argue that money doesn't equal speech and then say that depriving political campaigns of money is the best way to shut them up. Just how exactly do you think they manage to put their speech in front of voters? By buying advertising space in newspapers and on broadcast stations. The voting public is too big for everyone to be able to catch a stump speech in person, and the media can put in and leave out whatever parts of your ideas they like when reporting on you. No matter your politics, advertising is the best, perhaps only, way to get your unvarnished ideas out in public. And yeah, free speech is alive and well [i]in here,[/i] but we're not running for office, are we? "I had to have something, and it wasn't there. I couldn't go down the street and buy it, so I built it." Les Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Sorry, guys, but the bigger portion of this law was the caps on soft money. That's the most significant step we've made to date to wrestle the political power away from the wealthy and deliver it back into the hands of the common man. A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bitch Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 This is the worst assalt on the First Amendment I can remember, if this law stands, the flood gates are open for ALL kinds of legal actions to shut people up. McCain was a dumbass for introducing it. The Senate should NOT have passd it. The President caved to politics on it. The High Court FAILED the American people on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jode Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 [quote]Originally posted by WOW: [b]This is the worst assalt on the First Amendment I can remember, if this law stands, the flood gates are open for ALL kinds of legal actions to shut people up. McCain was a dumbass for introducing it. The Senate should NOT have passd it. The President caved to politics on it. The High Court FAILED the American people on it[/b][/quote]Gee, thanks Wow, now I feel worse than ever about it. This is an attack on liberty perpetrated by every single branch of the federal government. Each of the three is culpable. I wish you hadn't put it that way. "I had to have something, and it wasn't there. I couldn't go down the street and buy it, so I built it." Les Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.