| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Campaign Finance Law’s Key Parts Upheld |
| 2003-12-10 |
| Gee, didn’t everyone say "Don’t worry, the Supreme Court will throw this out? Full ruling here: The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the two key parts of landmark campaign finance law designed to curb the influence of money in politics, a ruling affecting the 2004 and future presidential and congressional elections. The nation’s high court upheld as constitutional provisions that ban unregulated contributions known as "soft money" to political parties and that restrict some television and radio "issue ads" by corporations and unions right before elections. The ruling produced eight separate opinions, totaling more than 275 pages. The part of the ruling upholding the two key provisions was jointly written by Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor, a key swing vote on the court divided between conservative and liberal factions, and was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. It concluded the law’s two principal, complementary features -- Congress’ efforts to plug the soft-money loophole and its regulation of electioneering communications -- must be upheld in the main. Justice Scalia says it for me: Justice Scalia, in his opinion, writes, "This is a sad day for freedom of speech." He then adds, "Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions 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 cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government." |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #5 I would have never believed the SC would restrict political speech. Incredible. I don't find it either unexpected or "incredible". The Supremes, especially the Donkey extremes, have been after the 2nd amendment for 30 years, and have already killed the 9th and 10th amendments. All is not lost, however. Go back and re-read the ENTIRE second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. As soon as enough people are disgruntled enough, things will change. The 'tipping point' is somewhere around twelve or thirteen percent of the active adult population. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-12-10 7:29:15 PM |
| #4 They have repleaded part of the first amendment. Some day they will repeal the rest. I would have never believed the SC would restrict political speech. Incredible. |
| Posted by: Harold 2003-12-10 5:06:45 PM |
| #3 From a purely political POV, however, this helps us as it's sure to destroy the Democratic party. This does nothing with respect to Republicans and Democrats. The strategies for circumventing the provisions of this bill were probably built right into the bill itself. This bill favors incumbents of whatever sort. Incumbents control actual policy and public funds which makes a whole lot of difference with respect to reelection. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-12-10 4:46:50 PM |
| #2 From a purely political POV, however, this helps us as it's sure to destroy the Democratic party. Those "independent" activist groups that now can get and spend the big money are likely to align wacko-left, ensuring the Dems' marginality perhaps for a generation. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-12-10 3:33:42 PM |
| #1 This isn't just a sad day. This is it: they've judicially repealed the first amendment. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-12-10 3:30:33 PM |