By ANNE GEARAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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," had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads.
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.
The court also upheld 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.
The so-called "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.
Supporters of the new law, called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, 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.
The court was divided on the complex issue; five of the nine justices voted to substantially uphold the soft money ban and the ad restrictions, which were the most significant features of the vast new law.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer signed the main opinion barring 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, 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
political speech is the most cherished of all speech. to say that elected officials can not be criticised 60 days before election makes us no better than communist china. where does this end? if you cant criticise an elected official 60 days before an election what is next? i expect at some point, for the politicians to pass a law saying they can never be criticised. does anyone care that our freedoms are being taken away? alrady 95 % of these jerks get reelected. bush signed this atrocitiy, he has lost my vote.
when politicians insulate themselves from criticism, it is time to declare a communist dictatorship.
SUPREME COURT destroys 1st amendment
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Here's another issue regarding schools
On top of dealing with the 1st amendment, which we should NEVER DESTROY, there is a high school in South Carolina that is filing a class action lawsuit stating that police officers moved into that school as tactical units arresting and pointing guns at students back in November. The cops had info stating there were drugs in that South Carolina High School. However those results were negativeand the students under no circumstances should have gone through that trauma from the cops. I think if there wasn't enough evidence to say there were drugs in that school that the school should file a class action lawsuit. I hope they file a big one too.
It sucks when tactical units are pointing a gun at you when you're trying to get an education. That's just SO SICK I could BARF right now!!!
Jim
It sucks when tactical units are pointing a gun at you when you're trying to get an education. That's just SO SICK I could BARF right now!!!
Jim
0 likes
-
rainstorm
The court also upheld 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.
harsh? if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen. the congress can not be allowed to pass laws that stifle criticism of congress itself. apparently the 1st amendment means nothing
harsh? if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen. the congress can not be allowed to pass laws that stifle criticism of congress itself. apparently the 1st amendment means nothing
0 likes
-
rainstorm
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
great men wrote this, and weasels destroyed it. now, 60 days beofre an election those weasels cant be criticised. i hate pro-abortion groups, but they should have the right to attack a candidate. in my opinion, the 1st amendment means nothing. this is the INCUMBENTS PROTECTION ACT!!
great men wrote this, and weasels destroyed it. now, 60 days beofre an election those weasels cant be criticised. i hate pro-abortion groups, but they should have the right to attack a candidate. in my opinion, the 1st amendment means nothing. this is the INCUMBENTS PROTECTION ACT!!
0 likes
1st amendment
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
Jim
0 likes
-
GalvestonDuck
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
They said nothing about SPEAKING out in criticism of another candidate. All they said was that political ads could not run 60 days prior to an election. They didn't say a candidate couldn't debate 60 days prior to an election and they didn't say they couldn't talk to the press 60 days prior to an election.
0 likes
-
rainstorm
they said quite clearly people cant get together and criticise a candidate. these weasels have destroyed the 1st amendment!! if you cant do it 60 days in advance of an elction, the eventual step will be to eliminate all criticism. as a citizen, i should have the right to criticise an elected official any time i so desire
0 likes
-
rainstorm
GalvestonDuck wrote:They said nothing about SPEAKING out in criticism of another candidate. All they said was that political ads could not run 60 days prior to an election. They didn't say a candidate couldn't debate 60 days prior to an election and they didn't say they couldn't talk to the press 60 days prior to an election.
exactly, power is now concentrated n the hands of the elite media, and taken away from the individual citizen.
0 likes
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
-
rainstorm
because I'll tell you why. Not only, not only do they like it politically, but in terms of business, the mainstream press, anybody that's considered to be a news program will benefit tremendously from this because there are no bounds. You know, ABC, CBS, NBC, whoever, 30 or 60 days before an election can go get any guest they want to pummel any opponent they want. Go get some academic, pointy-headed political scientist from over there, or some liberal fruitcake from over there, and they bring them on for 20 minutes, half hour, ten minutes, whatever it is, and bash Bush or bash a Republican, bash a conservative.
You know they're not going to be bashing Democrats on these network news shows. Can't touch that because that's not a commercial, my friends. That's not a bought-and-paid-for commercial. So the media, newscasts are considered untouchable here. So you can look for all kinds of documentaries and special election hour specials in this period because this is the time when most people make up their minds who they're going to vote for. So what's happened now, the mainstream press, they'll go get whoever guests they want and they can trash whoever they want. That person who has been trashed cannot respond on television, can't buy a commercial, can't get a commercial run, can't do it. Got to be invited by the press to come on and counter.
That's the way this is going to shake out. And, you watch, this is going to go into effect. We're going to see it in the 2004 presidential election cycle - and we'll see if it doesn't just manifest itself this way. I don't know how else it can. That's another reason why these people are happy, because they're going to look at this as having immense power now with no competition. Let me read to you the dissent by the Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He said, or he wrote, "The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties make 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."
This is unheard of! You've heard the phrase the Founding Fathers are "rolling over in their graves." They're about to wake up from their graves here, folks. This is unbelievable, I'm telling you! To assume that a contributor and a recipient are colluding and engaged in corruption is what's at the root of it Supreme Court decision? "Yep, we have to consider that. Somebody giving money to a politician, yep, that could be corruption so we're going to limit the ability of that activity to take place." This is encapsulated now as constitutional law, the whole McCain theory that money corrupts politics. And, by the way, if you think this is going to keep money out of politics, they've already found ways around it. These little organizations calls 527s.
this is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. nowhere in the constitution does it say congress can stifle criticism of itself.
my vote for bush is history!! at least i know a democrat wants to concentrate power in the hands of govt and the elite media.
You know they're not going to be bashing Democrats on these network news shows. Can't touch that because that's not a commercial, my friends. That's not a bought-and-paid-for commercial. So the media, newscasts are considered untouchable here. So you can look for all kinds of documentaries and special election hour specials in this period because this is the time when most people make up their minds who they're going to vote for. So what's happened now, the mainstream press, they'll go get whoever guests they want and they can trash whoever they want. That person who has been trashed cannot respond on television, can't buy a commercial, can't get a commercial run, can't do it. Got to be invited by the press to come on and counter.
That's the way this is going to shake out. And, you watch, this is going to go into effect. We're going to see it in the 2004 presidential election cycle - and we'll see if it doesn't just manifest itself this way. I don't know how else it can. That's another reason why these people are happy, because they're going to look at this as having immense power now with no competition. Let me read to you the dissent by the Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He said, or he wrote, "The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties make 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."
This is unheard of! You've heard the phrase the Founding Fathers are "rolling over in their graves." They're about to wake up from their graves here, folks. This is unbelievable, I'm telling you! To assume that a contributor and a recipient are colluding and engaged in corruption is what's at the root of it Supreme Court decision? "Yep, we have to consider that. Somebody giving money to a politician, yep, that could be corruption so we're going to limit the ability of that activity to take place." This is encapsulated now as constitutional law, the whole McCain theory that money corrupts politics. And, by the way, if you think this is going to keep money out of politics, they've already found ways around it. These little organizations calls 527s.
this is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. nowhere in the constitution does it say congress can stifle criticism of itself.
my vote for bush is history!! at least i know a democrat wants to concentrate power in the hands of govt and the elite media.
0 likes
-
rainstorm
great words from justice rehnquist:
Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He said, or he wrote, "The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties make 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."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He said, or he wrote, "The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties make 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."
0 likes
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
The campaign finance reform bill was a bi-partisan bill. The early thoughts were that it would have a big negative impact on the Republican party. The funny thing is that the opposite has happened. The Democratic Party has born the brunt of the loss of so-called soft money! Serves them right... 
0 likes
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
For those of us that care enough to read the actual decision, here's the ruling in it's entirety from the source..
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... 2-1674.pdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... 2-1674.pdf
0 likes
-
rainstorm
having congress regulate free political speech
is like having criminals write the legal code. this is a violation of the 1st amendment, pure and simple
0 likes
-
george_r_1961
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3171
- Age: 64
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:14 pm
- Location: Carbondale, Pennsylvania
Geez
Is this America or Communist China? Seems like a few boneheads are trying to take away the freedoms that many good people fought and died for.
0 likes
-
rainstorm
yes george, incumbents are only interested in their retention of power!!
"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," Scalia wrote.
i rarely agree with the aclu, but they have it exactly right:
"While it is encouraging that the high court acted to protect the constitutional rights of minors, it is unfortunate that the court turned its back on protecting the constitutional rights of advocacy groups," said ACLJ's chief counsel, Jay Sekulow. "By upholding the constitutionality of the law's advertising ban, advocacy groups will be effectively shut out of being able to express their opinions and views on the moral and cultural issues that play a key role in elections. The free-speech rights of minors were protected, but the free-speech rights of other Americans suffered a serious setback with this decision."
what gives here? the taxpayers are the ones that pay these spineless weasels salaries!! free political speech is essential to a democracy. once we start down the road of encumbent protectionism, none of our "supposed" rights are safe. if they are too thin skinned to withstand criticism, then find a job in the private sector.
"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," Scalia wrote.
i rarely agree with the aclu, but they have it exactly right:
"While it is encouraging that the high court acted to protect the constitutional rights of minors, it is unfortunate that the court turned its back on protecting the constitutional rights of advocacy groups," said ACLJ's chief counsel, Jay Sekulow. "By upholding the constitutionality of the law's advertising ban, advocacy groups will be effectively shut out of being able to express their opinions and views on the moral and cultural issues that play a key role in elections. The free-speech rights of minors were protected, but the free-speech rights of other Americans suffered a serious setback with this decision."
what gives here? the taxpayers are the ones that pay these spineless weasels salaries!! free political speech is essential to a democracy. once we start down the road of encumbent protectionism, none of our "supposed" rights are safe. if they are too thin skinned to withstand criticism, then find a job in the private sector.
0 likes
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
-
blizzard
- Category 5
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 2:04 am
- Location: Near the Shores of Gitche Gumme
rainstorm wrote:advocacy groups will be effectively shut out of being able to express their opinions and views on the moral and cultural issues that play a key role in elections.
Exactly, as you said it here, the advocay groups shouldn't run the campaigns. This will ensure that the candidates get elected on their own platform, not the platform of whoever gives them the most money. I can see this opening up a more fair playing grounds for elections.
And I do not agree that this is infringing on the 1st Amendment. Only those that have these delusions of Conspiracy Theories are buying into that.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests