Justices overturn law curbing political funds (Vermont)

[brooklynite]

Vermont case involves contributions and spending

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Vermont’s limits on contributions and spending in political campaigns are too low and improperly hinder the ability of candidates to raise money and speak to voters.

In a fractured set of opinions, justices said they were not sweeping aside 30 years of election finance precedent but rather finding only that Vermont’s law — the strictest in the nation — sets limits that unconstitutionally hamstring candidates.

The majority took issue with Vermont legislators for “constraining speech” by telling candidates and voters how much campaigning was enough.

President Bush’s two appointees to the court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — sided with the majority in overturning Vermont’s law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554224/

[Webster Green]

1. Fuck the Supreme W. Court!

They are owned by the chimp.

[saigon68]

6. THE BEST COURT--- Money can buy

[cal04]

2. link 6-3 vote

Supreme Court strikes down Vermont campaign finance law
A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Monday a Vermont law that strictly limits how much money candidates for state office can raise and spend on their political campaigns.

By a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that the restrictions on contributions and spending violated constitutional free-speech rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062600405.html?nav=rss_nation/special

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13554224/

[Epiphany4z]

4. clean elections

Public funded elections....It leaves the $ its freedom of speech by being optional. If a guy doesn't want to run that way fine...funds are matched..and the guy running the clean campaign...gets a boost..pluse it encourages contact with the public...even the poor.

You also don't have to wait for federal or states to go for public funded elections it can be done on local level...grass roots style...it has to start somewhere.

[Charlie Brown]

8. Was it Breyer who sided with the conservatives?

Who needs enemies with friends like these.

[Edgewater_Joe]

3. Time for Some Legal/Political Jujutsu

Okay, if free speech = money in politics, then I want a good Democrat who has a hard time raising money sue a state elections board and demand that he be given equal monies from the state to run. The reason? To NOT have money to run for election is an unconstitutional repression of free speech.

Let the Supremes turn THAT down.

[MaineDem]

5. I wonder if this will affect the Maine and Arizona laws? n/t

[Charlie Brown]

7. Wow, gays can't have partnerships, but unlimited political donations

are "free speech." Guess whoever has the most money will be the victor in Vermont from now on. Talk about an "activist" decision.

I thought these clowns claimed that the states have near soveriegn power to decide their own regulations and restrictions.

Only when it comes to gays, abortion, and "decency," I guess.

[cascadiance]

9. We need to campaign for November on a Constitutional Ammendment

to put into the constitution that

money != free speech

and put some meat into our laws that would force the Supreme Court to have to OBEY our consitution instead of being activist judges in trying to overturn the "will of the people".

Can only be done by voting in a Democratic Majority then, and with less emphasis on the DLC's agenda too!

[Vidar]

10. Fuck the Supremes!

[maxrandb]

11. When Money Became Speech

This country died.

Let me see if I get this straight. We need a Constitutional Amendment to ban Flag Desecration, because desecrating the flag is not speech, but we can't have limits on campaign money, because money is speech.

Wake me when this "effing" nightmare is over.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

12. The SC is full of shit.

But what more can we expect from people who want to ensure the survival of the richest?

[tanyev]

13. Remember, oh about a decade ago, when the RWingers

were constantly howling "State's Rights!!!" anytime there was a federal decision they didn't agree with? Funny how you just don't hear that mantra anymore.

[ShockediSay]

14. How is free speech free when so few of the filthy rich elite have

so much more of it than the vast majority of those who don’t have enough to get by?

Is this equal protection of the laws?

Is this supposed to be democracy? or biggest payers play?

And what happened to states'rights to reach their own determinations?