Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment;

[Patranus]

Place your bets...

Background from wiki:

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002) is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.

As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:

The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;

The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act



UPDATE

The Supreme Court on Thursday opened wide new avenues for big-moneyed interests to pour money into politics in a decision that could have a major influence on the 2010 midterm elections and President Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31786.html

 

[spidey07]

And folks wonder why we didn't vote for McCain.

 

[Carmen813]

If I pay each of you $500,000 will you never post here again?

 

[UberNeuman]

If I pay each of you $500,000 will you never post here again?

Give me $5,000 and I'm a ghost....

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Give me $5,000 and I'm a ghost....

I'm not greedy -- I'd leave for $500.

 

[UberNeuman]

I'm not greedy -- I'd leave for $500.

I'm easy, but I'm not cheap...

 

[Craig234]

This is a very important issue; big money in politics is the top problem breaking our democracy, thwarting the public and giving a small group the power to run things and get around the vote.

Unfortunately, most people seem to expect the radical right on the court to rule in favor of big money.

This issue lies behind trillions being shifted fro the public to the top and the danger to our economy.

 

[umbrella39]

If I pay each of you $500,000 will you never post here again?

$500K would buy a lot of sock puppets.

 

[woolfe9999]

I am a little uncertain about this issue. I support disallowing entity campaign contributions, and all other forms of remuneration going to candidates from entities. However, the problem exists of soft money, but unfortunately you cannot do anything about that without coming dangerously close to banning political speech, if not crossing the line.

I am inclined to agree with George Will on this one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103320.html

I suppose I could get behind a set of restrictions that are absolutely clear, like no TV adverts but everything in print is fine. That at least gives a clear signal which has no chilling effect that you get when you are unclear what is allowed and what is not.

- wolf

 

[Tristicus]

I'm not greedy -- I'd leave for $500.

I'll leave this for $50.

 

[Carmen813]

Haha, I think my joke didn't really work out. I was alluding to the idea that for enough money you could get anyone to say anything...hence McCain-Feingold.

 

[Patranus]

This is a very important issue; big money in politics is the top problem breaking our democracy, thwarting the public and giving a small group the power to run things and get around the vote.

Unfortunately, most people seem to expect the radical right on the court to rule in favor of big money.

This issue lies behind trillions being shifted fro the public to the top and the danger to our economy.

Don't you just love it when "progressive" ideas get twisted to help big business?
After all, if "freedom of speech" wasn't so twisted to include things like burning the American flag, I am sure political donations wouldn't be considered "protected speech".

 

[Zorkorist]

I had no idea McCain-Feingold was still up in the air.

I hope it is over-turned.

-John

 

[Craig234]

Don't you just love it when "progressive" ideas get twisted to help big business?
After all, if "freedom of speech" wasn't so twisted to include things like burning the American flag, I am sure political donations wouldn't be considered "protected speech".

That's because you're ignorant of the law. The root of corporations legal status as prople entitled to the 14th amendment's equal right protects, including free speech, designed for ex-slaves come from the 1880's, after a long battle by corporations to win it in trial after trial. finally getting it from perhaps the most ideological pro-business court nt he history of the country (not long before Plessy v. Ferguson).

The right to express your political views by not having the government tell you you are not allowed to burn a flag is from the 1980's in Texas v. Johnson.

Now, you are welcome to explain how the latter influenced the former a century before, and the relevance, but it will have the same accuracy as your usual post.

 

[Craig234]

I had no idea McCain-Feingold was still up in the air.

I hope it is over-turned.

-John

Simple question: do you prefer for the wealthy to have cominance in our government by ther money for donationsneeded to win overpowering the democracit right to representation by most citizens?

 

[dphantom]

This is a very important issue; big money in politics is the top problem breaking our democracy, thwarting the public and giving a small group the power to run things and get around the vote.

Unfortunately, most people seem to expect the radical right on the court to rule in favor of big money.

This issue lies behind trillions being shifted fro the public to the top and the danger to our economy.

My guess is the Court will rule in favor of free speech. At least that is my hope. I like my freedoms.

 

[Craig234]

My guess is the Court will rule in favor of free speech. At least that is my hope. I like my freedoms.

You don't have your freedoms, when you are not represented because you are not in the few ultra wealthy.

If you want an oligarchy, just return to nobilty who own and rule and stop broken democracy.

When popular opinion is ignored by the "representatives" when their interest conflict with the ultra wealthy, you don't have 'freedom'.

The point of free speech is to influence government policy, which a money-dominated system violates.

Money is not speech. One guy who has all the money making the rules by buying the system isn't free speech. It's monarchy by another name.

A few rich is the same thing, oligarchy pretending to be democracy. THe rich have engouh advantages already in democracy without the power to dominate the government.

 

[dphantom]

You don't have your freedoms, when you are not represented because you are not in the few ultra wealthy.

In my part of the country I do. Maybe where you are you don't really care to have the ability to say or do what you want.

 

[Craig234]

In my part of the country I do. Maybe where you are you don't really care to have the ability to say or do what you want.

See the edits increasing the comments and addresssig your response. And no you don't in your part of the country, if your elections are dominated by rich donors, and your free speech is irrelevant.

 

[dphantom]

See the edits increasing the comments and addresssig your response. And no you don't in your part of the country, if your elections are dominated by rich donors, and your free speech is irrelevant.

Since you do not know my part of the country, you are making baseless assumptions. I do know and know how much my voice counts. And I can tell you that the voice of a million poor will always resound more than the voice of wealth.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You don't have your freedoms, when you are not represented because you are not in the few ultra wealthy.

If you want an oligarchy, just return to nobilty who own and rule and stop broken democracy.

Then what you have to do is call for a Constitutional amendment which disallows contributions. George Will makes some good points. This isn't just about money.

From Will's article:

Last March, during the Supreme Court argument concerning the Federal Election Commission's banning of a political movie, several justices were aghast. Suddenly and belatedly they saw the abyss that could swallow the First Amendment.
Justice Antonin Scalia was "a little disoriented" and Justice Samuel Alito said "that's pretty incredible." Chief Justice John Roberts said: "If we accept your constitutional argument, we're establishing a precedent that you yourself say would extend to banning the book" -- a hypothetical 500-page book containing one sentence that said "vote for" a particular candidate.
What shocked them, but should not have, were statements by a government lawyer who was only doing his professional duty with ruinous honesty -- ruinous to his cause. He was defending the mare's-nest of uncertainties that federal campaign finance law has made and the mess the court made in 2003 when, by affirming the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold's further speech restrictions, it allowed Congress to regulate speech by and about people running for Congress.

Like Wolf, I'm conflicted because I believe that special interests have too much influence, however when do I say "you have too much influence so you cannot contribute".

As it stands, the court has to rule on the Constitutionality of the issue, and I think the law as written won't stand.

 

[Craig234]

Since you do not know my part of the country, you are making baseless assumptions. I do know and know how much my voice counts. And I can tell you that the voice of a million poor will always resound more than the voice of wealth.

The pattern across many politicians of our nation proves you wrong. For one example, Republicans put the interests of wealthy donors ahead of their poor constiuents every day.

You may not have seen what I have quoted many times:

"Politicians have to LOOK good to voters, and DO good for donors."

You are posting as a voter to whom your politician 'looks good'. He's doing his job.

The issue isn't that every politician is 'corrupt', that's not true. Maybe you're one of the lucky ones.

The issue is that you ADVOCATED for the system to let money dominate it and make the rich control it and the public be netrayed. You asked for that to happen in your post.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

And folks wonder why we didn't vote for McCain.

This was one of the reasons...

 

[EagleKeeper]

The pattern across many politicians of our nation proves you wrong. For one example, Republicans put the interests of wealthy donors ahead of their poor constiuents every day.

And the Dems have shown that they put the poor ahead of their donors?

They are both the same coin.

 

[daishi5]

You don't have your freedoms, when you are not represented because you are not in the few ultra wealthy.

If you want an oligarchy, just return to nobilty who own and rule and stop broken democracy.

When popular opinion is ignored by the "representatives" when their interest conflict with the ultra wealthy, you don't have 'freedom'.

The point of free speech is to influence government policy, which a money-dominated system violates.

Money is not speech. One guy who has all the money making the rules by buying the system isn't free speech. It's monarchy by another name.

A few rich is the same thing, oligarchy pretending to be democracy. THe rich have engouh advantages already in democracy without the power to dominate the government.

Does this act inhibit the NRA from petitioning the government?