Supreme Court Strikes Against First Amendment

[Kennedy 0]

Need any more evidence that judges at all levels make their decisions based on personal feelings then try to back it up with law?
link
=================================
Supreme Court Upholds Political Money Law

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties

Those donations, called "soft money" and totaling hundreds of millions of dollars,had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads.

Congress may regulate campaign money to prevent the real or perceived corruption of political candidates, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision. That goal and most of the rules Congress drafted to meet it outweigh limitations on the free speech of candidates and others in politics, the majority said.

At the same time, the court said the 2002 law will not stop the flow of campaign cash.

"We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day," Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) and Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) wrote for the majority.

The court also voted 5-4 to uphold restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.

Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., a co-author of the law, called the decision a "major victory for American democracy." He acknowledged the law won't stop all forms of abuse in the system, but it ends the era when "special interest groups could control the national political parties and underwrite federal campaigns by writing unlimited checks."

The justices struck down only two provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — a ban on political contributions from those too young to vote and a limitation on some party spending that is independent of a particular candidate.

The law hasn't stopped the flow of big money, but it has changed its course. In the months since the law took effect, several partisan interest groups have popped up to collect corporate, union and unlimited individual donations to try to influence next year's elections, including several on the Democratic side focused on the presidential race.

Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals capitalized on a loophole in the existing, Watergate-era campaign money system.

"Soft money" is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps on the amount individuals may give and which is outside the old law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign donations.

Federal election regulators had allowed soft money donations outside those restrictions so long as the money went to pay for get-out-the-vote activities and other party building programs run by the political parties.

Soft money allowed the three national Democratic Party committees to match their GOP rivals nearly dollar-for-dollar on get-out-the-vote and issue ad resources in the 2002 election.

The Democratic committees raised about $246 million in soft money in the last election cycle, compared with $250 million for the Republicans.

Supporters of the new law said that in practice, soft money was funneled to influence specific races for the House, Senate or the White House, and that donors, parties and candidates all knew it.

In addition to Stevens and O'Connor, Justices David Souter (news - web sites), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) signed the main opinion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) dissented on most issues. Swing voter Kennedy struck a compromise on one portion of the law. He said he would vote to uphold a soft money ban only as it applies to federal candidates and officeholders.

The majority's ruling bars candidates for federal office, including incumbent members of Congress or an incumbent president, from raising soft money.

The majority also barred the national political parties from raising this kind of money, and said their affiliates in the individual states may not serve as conduits for soft money.

Without soft money, politicians and political parties may only take in donations that are already allowed in limited amounts, such as a private individual's small re-election donation to his or her local member of Congress.

That means no more huge checks from wealthy donors, and no contributions from the treasuries of corporations or labor unions.

The Supreme Court's 300-page ruling on the 2002 campaign finance overhaul settles legal and constitutional challenges from both the political right and the left. Although the reform effort was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush (news - web sites), many politicians and others in the business of politics were leery of it.

The law is often known as "McCain-Feingold" — named for its chief Senate sponsors, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. McCain built his maverick 2000 presidential campaign largely around the assertion that the old system of political money laws was full of holes.

The new rules have been in force during the early stages of preparation for the 2004 elections for president and Congress. The high court ruling means those rules remain largely untouched as the political seasons heats up. The first delegate-selection contests are just weeks away, in January.

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 justices cut short their summer vacation to hear an extraordinary four hours of oral arguments on the issue in early September. The court's regular term began a month later.

The case marked the court's most detailed look in a generation at the complicated relationships among those who give and receive campaign cash. The case also presented a basic question about the wisdom of the government policing political give and take.

The court has given government an extensive role in the area on grounds that there is a fundamental national interest in rooting out corruption or even the appearance of it. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech, the court has said.

The case is McConnell v. FEC, 02-1674.

(edit to add link)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

I fail to see how this is a first amendment issue. It just means that corps and unions can't give unlimited donations to candidates or parties. They can still give unlimited money to special interest groups who can then spend that on advertising in favor of specific candidates and parties. I don't see how this will change a thing, actually.

[AndyMan 7]

Do you actually think about these things before you repost them....?

To answer your question, no I don't need any evidence at all that judges make their decisions based on their personal feelings. They are human, after all, thus the rules of human nature apply.

I think you were suggesting that they do so in an appropirate manner, and yes - I'd need a lot more evidence then what you've posted here.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I fail to see how this is a first amendment issue.

Sorry, I should have posted information for those not up on this one.

One very important section of McCain-Feingold states that no commercial can name a candidate within a certain timeframe before an election.

This affects groups not connected to candidates. IT stops groups from running ads informing voters about candidates' histories. Let's say a candidate runs on a partially pro-gun platform, but has voted for a lot of gun control. THe NRA can't bring his record to light. Let's say a candidate runs as environmentally friendly. Eco-groups can't come out and say he supported tearing up the ANWR and burning down the rainforests.

It places unreasonable limits on free speech. Everyone from the NRA to the ACLU filed suit against the law.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Remster 30]

Quote

Need any more evidence that judges at all levels make their decisions based on personal feelings then try to back it up with law?

I'm rusty on my legal expertise (bawaahaaaa) buts isnt it the judges job to INTERPRET the laws?

Remster

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I'm rusty on my legal expertise (bawaahaaaa) buts isnt it the judges job to INTERPRET the laws?

Before I spent time in court, I used to think it was their job to figure out the law. Now I know many of them don't give a rusty F() decision. In reality I have seen that it is decision --> law.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[captainpooby 0]

Quote

I fail to see how this is a first amendment issue. It just means that corps and unions can't give unlimited donations to candidates or parties. They can still give unlimited money to special interest groups who can then spend that on advertising in favor of specific candidates and parties. I don't see how this will change a thing, actually.

Wrong. The law specifically prohibits special interest groups from advertising for or against candidates during specific time periods before elections.
That means you will have to accept only what the media tells you.

excerpts:

"Dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:

``The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the `close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties' makes all donations to the national parties `suspect.' But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech, is not a surrogate for corruption; it is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands Congress' ability to regulate political speech...''

``No doubt Congress was convinced by the many abuses of the current system that something in this area must be done. Its response, however, was too blunt.''

Dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia:

``This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restriction upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, 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...''

``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.''

Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas:

``The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press... Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections. Nor is there any doubt that media companies often wish to influence elections. One would think that the New York Times fervently hopes that its endorsement of presidential candidates will actually influence people. What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is `too influential,' and that the `appearance of corruption' is significant when the media organizations endorse candidates or run `slanted' or `biased' news stories in favor of candidates or parties?''

"

[Kennedy 0]

Impressive. I'm still reading the damned thing. One of the longest rulings I've tried reading in a while.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

I'm a little bit at a loss as to why you're so upset with the Supreme Court.

Just remember it was called the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" and was signed into law by President GW Bush on March 27, 2002.

If you really wanted to be upset at someone, I would think you'd first go to the source, Congress and then to the person that actually signed it into law, the President. If anyone was trying to usurp the Constitution, wouldn't it have been the original framers of the new law?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

Believe me, I've written letter to all of the above. I am disgusted with the congress for passing it, more so with GWB for signing it, but most of all with the courts who should know better.

I'm not a fan of expanding government powers, no matter which party is behind it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[captainpooby 0]

Quote

I'm a little bit at a loss as to why you're so upset with the Supreme Court.

Just remember it was called the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" and was signed into law by President GW Bush on March 27, 2002.

If you really wanted to be upset at someone, I would think you'd first go to the source, Congress and then to the person that actually signed it into law, the President. If anyone was trying to usurp the Constitution, wouldn't it have been the original framers of the new law?

I am pissed at GW. He signed a blatantly unconstitutional piece of legislation hoping the SCOTUS would strike it down like they should have and it backfired.
Man I cant stand politicians.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes, a judge interprets the law. And interpretations may vary amongst anybody and everybody.

Why are there nine members of the Supreme Court? Why not just one? After all, the judge just interprets the law. It is because things can be viewed differently. The founders of the nation simply recognized it.

The decision was 5-4. A "sharply divided" court. It's nice to see that human nature was built into our system.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

You're right, I wasn't aware of the media blackout stipulation. That's definitely a suspect aspect of this.

[quade 4]

Quote

Believe me, I've written letter to all of the above. I am disgusted with the congress for passing it, more so with GWB for signing it, but most of all with the courts who should know better.

To be fair, it was a close vote 5-4, so you don't really have to be pissed at all of them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

But unfortunately, the ones we should be upset with are the least likely to retire anytime soon.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Washington post chimes in:
page one
page two

McCain-Feingold Ruling Angers Activists on Both Left and Right

By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 11, 2003

It's not every day the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union are outraged by the same Supreme Court decision.

The two organizations are often used to represent opposite poles of American politics, the gun-toting right and the liberal left. But both groups hated yesterday's unexpectedly broad ruling by the court to uphold the major provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[TheAnvil 0]

This irks me. I was hoping Sen McConnell et al would be successful in challenging the law.

Blues and beers,

Vinny the Anvil

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

It's not every day the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union are outraged by the same Supreme Court decision.

The two organizations are often used to represent opposite poles of American politics, the gun-toting right and the liberal left. But both groups hated yesterday's unexpectedly broad ruling by the court to uphold the major provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

Which is a good indication that the Supremes got it right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I thought you were for free speech? How is a law which is clearly designed to protect incumbency a good law?

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

I thought you were for free speech? How is a law which is clearly designed to protect incumbency a good law?

Who has been stopped from speaking? Don't equate money with speech.

When both the right and left hate it, it's probably just about correct.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Who has been stopped from speaking? Don't equate money with speech.

Umm, how about everyone other than network owners. Do you not know about the gag provision? I don't have a problem with the campaign finance part of the campaign finance reform. It's the gagging of unaffiliated groups who represent millions of Americans that I have a problem with.

Quote

When both the right and left hate it, it's probably just about correct.

These are organizations interested in freedom. So when conservative and liberal civil rights groups hate it, that makes it a good decision? Interesting logic even for you.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Kallend is wrong on this one!

In Buckley v. Valeo, 474 U.S. 1 (1976), the court held that any limitations on the amount of money that a person or individual could spend on political speech was a de facto abridgment of free speech.

Why did the majority of the court get it wrong? Here's why.

The First Amendment does not guarantee equal free speech to all. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak all you want free from government interference.

In this matter, the majority of the court forgot that. The majority of the court seems to believe that "free speech" means "equal speech." Thus, the government must interfere with the abilities of some to express it to ensure equal speech.

This is, quite simply, hogwash. If I want to spend a billion dollars on Super Bowl ads stating that Howard Dean has publicly supported gun ownership rights, then the Constitution should guarantee my right to do so free from government intervention. Money = speech. The majority of the court doesn't think that it fair.

The minority of the court correctly observe that free speech is guaranteed by equal protection of the government to make such speech. Some may speak more loudly than others, but the government should not be allowed to stifle them.

Kallend. Is the minority wrong? Is "Free Speech" supposed to be "equal speech" or is it supposed to be the freedom from government intrvention?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[boudy 0]

For those seeking an unemotional in-depth airing of the issues - right at this moment C-Span has a rerun of a panel discussion & Q/A which took place yesterday regarding decision. It'll probably be rerun again a few times. Panel includes legal types including Kenneth Star, Seth Waxman, Trevor Potterclose & others close to the case.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The majority of the court doesn't think that it fair.

Like I've been saying, judges and justices seem to be deciding their answer and then trying to find law to rationalize it. What ever happened to checking the law then finding your answer?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The majority of the court doesn't think that it fair.

Like I've been saying, judges and justices seem to be deciding their answer and then trying to find law to rationalize it. What ever happened to checking the law then finding your answer?

Gee, then you won't get the answer you want.