Moderator: S2k Moderators
mf_dolphin wrote:The Supreme Court decision does not restrict all political advertising within 60 days of the election. What it restricts is the "get-around-the-law" advertising which was funded illegally. Advertising which is paid for under the current law can still be done....
blizzard wrote:I am not sure that the media is as biased as you would like to imagine. Granted some are, but I don't believe during an election they are. They have debates on their shows and how can they bias those?
mf_dolphin wrote:mf_dolphin wrote:The Supreme Court decision does not restrict all political advertising within 60 days of the election. What it restricts is the "get-around-the-law" advertising which was funded illegally. Advertising which is paid for under the current law can still be done....
Helen, why don't you reply? Afraid of the truth? I did take the time to actually read the decision today...have you?
I didn't say this made the individual more powerful. I said that this limits the power of special interest groups and the very wealthy from acting as a political party's thinly vieled mouthpiece as a way of getting around the campaign finance laws. Now answer my question...have you read the decision or just the BS from someone elses views. Rooting out corruption, or even the appearance of it, justifies limitations on the free speech and free spending of contributors, candidates and political parties, the court said in a 5-4 decision.
"We are under no illusion that [the law] will be the last congressional statement on the matter," Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority. "Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."
The unlimited and often large donations known as "soft money" from rich people, corporations and labor unions had come to dominate elections for Congress and the White House, and evidence shows the money bought access for the wealthy or well-connected, a majority of the court said.
"Just as troubling to a functioning democracy as classic quid pro quo corruption is the danger that officeholders will decide issues not on the merits or the desires of their constituencies, but according to the wishes of those who have made large financial contributions valued by the officeholder," Stevens and O'Connor wrote.
rainstorm wrote:we will find out in 2004!! remeber that last minute drunk driving story on george bush in 2000? i strongly feel that killed his momentum. he was headed for an easy win. now the elite media, starting 60 days before an election can say whatever they want, but individuals can not have the same access to that media to say what they want. good luck, conservatives.
but one other consequence of this atrocity. look for democrts early in 2004 to file a lawsuit, under the provisions of this act, to forbid conservative talk radio to crticise democrats 60 days before an election. think this wont happen? it will!! and when it does, bush loses his strongest allies. they will use the pretext that talk radio is not part of the 'elite' media, becasue they dont give equal time to both sides.
this is a certainty. once you start down the road of silencing some people, the process will never end. how many people should be silenced?
unfortunately, i cant blame dems for this, bush signed the bill!!
and i will go along with what antonin scalia says, a brilliant man.
WXBUFFJIM wrote:If the 1st amendment is in our CONSTITUTION, Then why is the supreme court breaking that constitution rule??? Do they just want to throw the constitution in the trash can or something. Man they're more harsh than even the politicans!!!
Jim
mf_dolphin wrote:Quotes from the Majority side...Rooting out corruption, or even the appearance of it, justifies limitations on the free speech and free spending of contributors, candidates and political parties, the court said in a 5-4 decision.
"We are under no illusion that [the law] will be the last congressional statement on the matter," Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority. "Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
