Supreme Court Upholds Political Money Law

[Atman]

Supreme Court Upholds Political Money Law
'Soft Money' Ban, Ad Limits Maintained


By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 10, 2003; 1:11 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 means the current election campaign can proceed without interruption under the new law, according to attorneys on both sides of the case.

The law, which sought to control the influence of money in politics, was aimed primarily at two widespread practices. 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, which critics said were actually thinly disguised partisan promotions of particular candidates for office. While it did not ban any kind of ad, the law restricted "electioneering communications," defined as ads that run in close proximity to scheduled elections and refer to a particular candidate or are aimed at a particular candidates constituency.

The justices upheld almost all of the new restrictions in both these areas by 5-to-4 votes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52529-2003Dec10.html

[s33]

1. i cant decide

if this is good or bad.Does it essentially give all the power to media organizations?Could DU be shutdown 60 days prior to an election because of it's large audience and pro-democrat stance?

[snooper2]

4. It must be good...

Because shithead Rush is non-stop bitching about it....

:)

[Danmack]

21. Thats my thought also (BUMP)

:toast:

The jerks at FR have a thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1037638/posts that is currently over 1600 posts.

But no big deal to us???????

I think this is a BIG deal. No more RTL, NRA and more of all the other social conservative groups flooding the air waves (spending millions $$$$$) right before an election to sway the vote against a specific one of our Dem choices.

They are pissed that they can't legal try and sway the vote without declaring who is paying for it!!!

We have reason to celebrate this big TIME

:party:

On Edit: They are pissed that they can't target a particular candidate in their ad's (they can run any ad they want, just not name a certain candidates name). Christ they think its the final straw that broke the back on any reason to vote for the chimpy in chief again. Read the thread, this was a big deal for alot of chimpys base:toast:

[conservdem]

20. If the law raises that specter, how can it be good?

I have not yet read the decision, but I am inclined to think that the First Amendment and Americans suffered a setback today.

[goobergunch]

2. Very good

It's nice to see the Court on the side of reform for a change. A :toast: to the majority today!

[stopthegop]

6. yeah...that whole 'freedom to crititcize our leaders' stuff

is over-rated anyway...why should a group of people be allowed to take out an ad doing that?

[11 Bravo]

3. Good, now we can look forward to another screed from Fat Tony.

(I love it when that prick is on the short end of a 5-4 decision.)

[goobergunch]

5. RULING TEXT - LINK TO OPINIONS

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf

[CheshireCat]

7. How did they vote?

Does anyone have a break down of the vote?

[goobergunch]

9. Stevens, O'Connor, Breyer, Souder, and Ginsberg upheld the law

Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist dissented.

[goobergunch]

8. Yay! They struck down the part that I don't like!

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., 393 U. S. 503, 511–513. Because limitations on an individual’s political contributions impinge on the freedoms of expression and association, see Buckley, 424 U. S., at 20–22, the Court applies heightened scrutiny to such a limitation, asking whether it is justified by a “sufficiently important interest” and “closely drawn” to avoid unnecessary abridgment of the First Amendment, see e.g., post, at 25–26 (joint opinion of STEVENS and O’CONNOR, JJ.). The Government offers scant evidence for its assertion that §318 protects against corruption by conduit—i.e., donations by parents through their minor children to circumvent contribution limits applicable to the parents. Absent a more convincing case of the claimed evil, this interest is simply too attenuated for §318 to withstand heightened scrutiny. See Shrink Missouri, 528 U. S., at 391. Even assuming, arguendo, the Government advances an important interest, the provision is overinclusive, as shown by the States’ adoption of more tailored approaches. Pp. 9-11.

So Jeff Seemann and Vince Whitacre, expect to be getting a little something from me in the near future.

[Atman]

10. It seems to change nothing

It only upholds the bullshit system already in place as being legal. Are you happy with the way things are in this regard?

That is how "good" it is.

[janx]

11. YEE-HAH!

Why wasn't this at the top of LBN all morning?

This is very good news. It takes a lot of corrupt money out of politics--money that the reich wing is going to miss.

[Atman]

12. I saw it on CNN almost an hour before I posted

Since it was only a teevee headline, I didn't bother with LBN because I thought I'd be breaking yet another rule and drawing more heat from the mods. I just assumed someone else must have heard about it. But it wasn't even on CNN's web site, so I finally went searching for a headline I could post.

I can't believe this went unnoticed for so long, either!

[janx]

14. Limbaugh is FREAKING!

He's afraid that someone will try and apply the new law to him 60 days preceding an election by asserting he's paid advertising.

Which he is...

But I don't know if that will stick.

[MrBenchley]

13. Ken Starr Bites Another Big One

America's favorite crotch-sniffing loony was the right wing's point man on the legal challenge....

Maybe they should have got a real lawyer...

[janx]

15. That's the only thing I can think of too.

It was written so well that there was no way the Supremes could knock it down.

We should all thank Mister Starr.

The Rove/Chimpy strategery here was to sign the bill (to appear fair) and fully expect his cronies in the SC to trash it.

But they didn't! They couldn't!

[MrBenchley]

18. No wonder the NRA put out that press release

about buying a TV station....they knew their peculiar little buddy was a loser...

[Atman]

17. Batting 1000, eh Ken

And in typical reward-for-failure GOP style, Ken will probably keep getting big important cases, and paid higher and higher fees by the repubs.

Couldn't nail Clinton with $70 million...couldn't nail this one with a Bush-loving court. Oh, my, Ken...you're must be in line for a HUGE promotion, you are such a miserable failure! Maybe you can be the new Iraq AG!

[MrBenchley]

19. It's the NRA's fault

If only they'd given him $70 million, he could have got Linda Tripp to get an illegal wiretap....that would have done the trick...

[Robbien]

16. Mixed reaction here

This will shift the soft money away from political parties and into the issue advocacy groups(i.e. Moveon). There should be a decline in the importance of the major political parties with regards to involvement in elections. Since the DLC is not doing much for the cause, this may not be a bad thing.

But restricting speaking out against the president through advertisements cannot be a good thing.