1st amendment upheld!! campaign finance law struck down

[rainstorm]

to me, it was always the encumbents protection act. it would just make it harder for encumbents to be challenged

Parts of Campaign Finance Law Struck Down

By SHARON THEIMER
The Associated Press
Friday, May 2, 2003; 4:24 PM


WASHINGTON - A federal court Friday struck down most of a ban on the use of large corporate and union political contributions by political parties, casting into doubt the future of the campaign finance law that was supposed to govern next year's high-stakes presidential election.

The court also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. It barred the federal government from enforcing them and all other parts of the law it struck down.

The ruling clears the way for an immediate appeal by the losing parties to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court's decision will lay the ground rules for the 2004 presidential election and beyond.

The decision is a victory for the Republican National Committee and dozens of interest groups, who contended that the law would undermine their ability to participate in politics. It is a loss for Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin who fought for years to get a new law enacted. They argued that it was time to end the corrupting influence of big money in politics.

The ruling came from a special three-member, fast-track panel of Appeals Court Judge Karen Henderson, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and District Judge Richard Leon.

In a 2-1 vote, the court ruled that political parties can raise corporate and union contributions for general party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration but cannot use it for issue advertising.

Also voting 2-1, the court struck down a provision barring a range of interest groups from airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts in the month before a primary election and within two months of a general election.

The court made its ruling effective immediately, barring the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the restrictions it struck down.

The new campaign finance law took effect Nov. 6, forcing an immediate change in party fund raising.

It prohibited the national party committees from raising contributions known as "soft money" from corporations, unions and others. The Democratic and Republican parties have collected the unlimited checks in ever-increasing amounts: The fall election saw some contributions of $1 million and more. The parties were allowed to use the money on general party-building activities such as voter registration drives and issue ads.

President Bush signed the law in March 2002 after more than six years of struggle by the law's lead sponsors, including McCain and Feingold, to get the legislation through Congress.

"I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns," Bush said at the time, adding that parts of the bill including the political ad restrictions presented "serious constitutional concerns."

Within hours of the bill's signing, the National Rifle Association and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., filed lawsuits arguing many of the law's restrictions violated free-speech and other constitutional rights.

Dozens of groups joined their effort to overturn parts of the law, including the Republican National Committee, the Democratic and Republican parties of California, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee and the National Association of Broadcasters.

While several political party committees and interest groups sued because they felt the law removed too much money from politics, others argued it should be struck down because it put too much in.

Several groups, including the National Voting Rights Institute, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, targeted the law's increase in contribution limits.

While others have argued that new political spending restrictions in the law violate free speech, those challenging the higher hard-money limits say it impinges on speech rights by giving wealthy donors too loud a voice in elections.

[streetsoldier]

Great news! This means the GOP can meet the DNC on equal footing financially...and send Hillary to the hell she SO richly deserves!

[Aslkahuna]

It should now be mandatory for every elected official to wear this sign.
FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER

Steve

[Lindaloo]

Great news! This means the GOP can meet the DNC on equal footing financially...and send Hillary to the hell she SO richly deserves!

AMEN!!!

[mf_dolphin]

I can't figure who got the worst end of the marriage. Bill or Hillary

[Stephanie]

It should now be mandatory for every elected official to wear this sign.
FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER

Steve

You got that right! It's like everything else...you got money, you get noticed.

[rainstorm]

It should now be mandatory for every elected official to wear this sign.
FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER

Steve

WRONG!! challengers need to raise as much money as possible. incumbents have the advantage of being in office and name recognition.
this law was passed so incumbents could be protected from being defeated. also, the provision where you can not criticize an incumbent 60 days prior to an election was clearly anti 1st amendment. we dont live in cuba. this was the first step in outlawing any criticism of incumbents. thank god the incumbent protection bill was struck down.

[Stephanie]

But when it comes down to it, no matter whether it's the incumbent or challenger, the one with the most money has the biggest advantage. I see what you are saying though about how the law it could help the incumbent, but if you could buy a good writer, anything is possible.

Unfortunately, it's not the best people that are out there running for public office, it's the ones with the most money.