The court ruled a case today regarding the McCain-Feingold bill. I think more challenges will come and possible be ruled upon before the 2008 elections!
links:
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-969) (2007); McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life (No. 06-970) (2007)
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-30-2007 at 07:00 AM. Reason: fixed link
Opens the door, again, for big money ins utions, overwhelmingly the corps, to lie and slander inflammatorily right before elections. The dubya SC court packed with radical conservatives continues it campaign of empowering ins utions, private and public, to crush rights of individuals, turning the USA into France.
First of all, how can you call them radical conservatives?
The ruling allows counter to the lies also that are placed at the 31 or 61 day points. I don’t think it had an effect on the money aspect, just the timing blackouts.
The McCain Feingold bill was a good faith attempt to reform financing of campaigns, but it failed. PAC's are bigger than ever to get around the big money part.
I should have linked another piece that was in the court materials; Link:
BRIEF AMICI CURIAE
Starting on page 21 (27 of pdf file):
Notice how things are not able to be used as an issue during the blackout, and the blackout became an advantage to president Bush!In 2004, the general election took place on Tuesday, November 2, 2004. Sixty days prior to Election Day was Friday, September 3, 2004. For purposes of the prohibition on issue advertisments by grassroots lobbying organizations, thus, the relevant sixty day period blacking out coverage was from September 3, 2004, through November 2, 2004.
During that covered period, the President conducted the following business:
(1) issued four executive orders;
(2) issued twenty-nine proclamations;
(3) signed fifty-five legislative acts or bills into law;
(4) announced thirty-three intentions to nominate;
(5) announced eight intentions to designate;
(6) announced forty-three intentions to appoint;
(7) submitted sixty-six nominations to the Senate;
(8) withdrew three nominations from the Senate;
(9) declared twenty-six federal emergencies or major disasters;
(10) sent twelve presidential communications to Congress;
(11) sent twenty-one presidential communications to federal agencies;
(12) issued three executive notices;
(13) issued twelve statements;
(14) made remarks after eight meetings with foreign leaders;
(15) made seventy remarks regarding the 2004 federal election;
(16) made twenty-two general remarks;
(17) made seven radio addresses; and
(18) had two other media interactions.
In 2006, the general election took place on Tuesday, November 7th. Sixty days prior to Election Day was Friday, September 8th. For purposes of the prohibition on issue advertisements by grassroots lobbying organizations, thus, the relevant sixty day period blacking out coverage was from September 8, 2006, through November 7, 2006.
During that covered period, the President conducted the following business:
(1) issued three executive orders;
(2) issued thirty-five proclamations;
(3) signed ninety-one legislative acts or bills into law;
(4) announced twenty-nine intentions to nominate;
(5) announced one intention to designate;
(6) submitted thirty-one nominations to the Senate;
(7) withdrew three nominations;
(8) made two recess appointments;
(9) announced twenty-five intentions to appoint people to non-principal offices;
(10) issued one statement on the retirement of a federal employee;
(11) declared ten federal emergencies or major disasters;
(12) sent seventeen presidential communications to congress;
(13) sent twelve presidential communications to federal agencies;
(14) made thirty-one statements;
(15)made remarks made after nineteen meetings with foreign leaders;
(16) made thirty six remarks regarding the 2006 federal election;
(17) made forty-one general remarks;
(18) made nine radio addresses;
(18) had three other media interactions; and
(19) had four miscellaneous occasions at which the President spoke.
We're now going to see and hear a lot more ads like these:
"...so please, call Congressman Smith and let him know, rounding up senior citizens into concentration camps is just plain wrong!"
smear vets for truth must have jumped for joy when they received word of this decision..
Any free speech advocate should have jumped for joy.
responsible free speech
I can't wait to hear from you on how the liberals are lying when they are putting out ads that you consider to untruthful for the GOP candidate in early November. Of course this will leave a candidate zero time to respond to misleading and untruthful ads when they happen 2 days before the election. Of course only the wealthiest amongst us will be able to afford the TV time in the run up to the election. I guess you will jump for joy when Soros spends millions of dollars a week before the election smearing the GOP candidate without any recourse.. But hey it's free speech..
bong hits for jesus?
Who defines responsible?
I'm not as concerned about Democrats lying as you should be about everyone else telling the truth about Democrats.
McCain-Feingold is the precise type of law the First Amendment was written to prohibit. Political free speech is exactly what the framers intended to protect.
Maybe if you're concerned about lies, people should look at the defamation and slander laws so that it is easier for politicians to hold the liars accountable.
I'm all for that.
I haven't read the decision but, from what's been reported, the Supremes upheld the abridgement of this speech because a) it occurred on school property at a school function and b) it promoted drug use in that environment.
Schools have a lot of la ude in reining in such behavior. It's a distant cousing to not protected, as free speech, a person yelling fire in a crowded theater.
"it occurred on school property at a school function"
no, misinformed guesses:
"Mr Frederick, 18, had been standing on a public sidewalk across the street from the school when Ms Morse grabbed his banner and crumpled it"
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...49-401,00.html
Mr. Frederick was on the sidewalk across the street from the school during a school-sponsored event -- specifically, students were excused from class by the principal during the school day and were permitted to stand on sidewalks, either in front of the school or across the street, to watch the Olympic Torch Relay. There are, to be sure, other instances that will arise in sequels to Morse that will test the boundaries of school speech law. But in this case, it makes sense to conclude that since Frederick was in his location only because the school had provided him that opportunity -- by releasing him and other students from class at that time -- his conduct was within the purview of school governance.
You're right in the sense that political speech is cons utionally-significant and that limits upon political speech are, therefore, presumptively uncons utional. But as with many other areas in which governmental acts are also presumptively uncons utional, it is clear that governments can still legislate upon showing a compelling interest for the legislation and that the means used to achieve that interest are narrowly-tailored toward that end.
The Court has wrestled with the speech/expression component of political campaign finances for quite a while and I'm sure that we're not yet to the end of that fight. There are, in my mind, compelling interests supporting at least some legislation when it comes to contributions to and financing of political campaigns, because that expression is necessarily not a matter of equal opportunity. If it's purely a matter of speech, Bill Gates and the poorest of the poor each have an equal opportunity to say what they wish about a subject. But where its a matter of expression through expenditure, there would clearly be a disparity in terms of the ability of the poorest of the poor to exercise the same right as Bill Gates. It makes sense to me that there's a compelling governmental interest in limiting that disparity -- at least in terms of how much money can be spent and when.
It's not the rich people that keep voting these people into office. If we, as citizens, have a problem with money influencing politics, we need to elect officials that won't be swayed.
It's not political speech that needs to be abridged; voters need to become more politically aware and involved.
There are more of us than there are of them. If we're tired of money influencing our government, we need to speak with our votes. We don't need to violate a fundamental right to do so.
I found the conclusion to Justice Robert's majority opinion interesting and relevant to our discussion:
So "Schlong Hits 4 Jesus" would be ok.it promoted drug use in that environment
I see your point, but money will always play some role in acquiring political clout, and there's no reasonable justification for allowing those with more money to have a disproportionate say in electing officials. Campaign finance reform efforts aren't truly aimed at curbing political speech in the main.
Besides, the flip side of your argument, it seems to me, is that contributions of money to candidates is hardly a significant form of political speech -- or at least that it should not be. That is, if money should be no object, then why is there such chagrin over limiting campaign contributions and things like them?
Clearly, someone, somewhere believes that there is some quantum of difference based on how much money is spent.
Ultimately, I don't know that anyone has a fundamental cons utional right abridged if he or she faces limits upon how much money can be contributed to political candidates. Each individual is permitted to engage in the expression he or she prefers, but there are neutral limits on the extent of that expression. For instance, there is no cons utional violation in a municipality limiting the time that individuals can speak to the governing body while in session about matters of public interest. Undoubtedly, citizen presentations in that cir stance are political expressions at some level, but there are content-neutral limitations that are narrow-tailored to achieving a compelling governmental interest that make those limitations permissible. Honestly, I just don't see limits on campaign financing to be some overarching issue of impermissible infringement on cons utional rights. I can see that the government would have to prove that its limitation is narrow-tailored to meet some compelling interest and I could see that limitations in certain cir stances couldn't meet that test, but I'm not sure that idiosyncratic failures are indicative of some sort of per se cons utional violation in attempting to set some limits.
Your right. So educate the masses. With some ingenuity and common sense, even you can affect the political landscape.
I think the current debate over the immigration bill is a good example of how the American People are using other means of communication -- besides money -- in order to have their voices heard in Washington.
There's no guarantee the Comprehensive Piece of Crap Immigration bill is going to make it. A few years ago, the blogosphere and Talk Radio would not have been able to turn the tide so quickly.
Adapt. Just don't trample on my rights.
Because it's a shameful practice and it certainly leaves the impression you're for sale. But, I disagree. I think money is an ultimate form of political expression.
"For where your treasure is, there also your heart shall be."
I think we're just going to have to disagree.
I believe in a person's right to put his personal property property, whether it be his time, treasure, or talent, wherever he pleases.
Let me propose this. Should there be a prohibition against the CEO of GSDM (and advertising firm) voluteering to be the campaign manager for a candidate. His capabilities in marketing are certainly worth a lot of money...as are the resources he can draw upon.
I don't see the difference in someone donating their time and someone paying for that same person to be on a campaign.
There are laws relating to what an ad agency can charge political campaigns for its services. So the CEO of GSD&M couldn't put his buyers and creative team to work for pennies in the interest of his favorite candidate.Let me propose this. Should there be a prohibition against the CEO of GSDM (and advertising firm) voluteering to be the campaign manager for a candidate. His capabilities in marketing are certainly worth a lot of money...as are the resources he can draw upon.
I don't see the difference in someone donating their time and someone paying for that same person to be on a campaign.
Yes his expertise as the head of a large firm is worth a premium, but as a volunteer, his "resources" - hypothetically - would the same as anyone else's.
It would only be unfair if those resources were off limits to other candidates.
Not if money is the currency that produces results; and not if those with greater means are able to outspend those who aspire to create political change.
But isn't there a consideration here that by allowing limitless spending, the government is allowing the weathly to, in essence, trample on the rights of those without such means? It's odd to me that you advance so many aspirational arguments in this thread, but ultimately return in every instance to your somehow indisputable right to spend as much money as you want to affect elections. If money is (or should be) insignificant to elections, then I don't understand the problem with setting limits that are narrowly-tailored to assuring a level playing field for all who wish to engage in that expression. If money is a significant factor in elections, then I don't see how limitless spending does anything other than subserviate the rights of the poor to the whims of the wealthy in matters of political expression.
So why should the rich have better means of utilizing the "ultimate form of political expression" than the middle class or the poor? Aren't each of us en led to equal protection under the law? If so, how does "protecting" the supposed First Amendment rights of weathier individuals not trample substantially upon the Fourteenth Amendment rights of those who lack such resources?
And if you've no treasure, well too bad because you really don't deserve the opportunity to engage in the "ultimate form of political expression" I guess?
Now that would be a first.
Sure. But again, the problem here is that we're talking about, as you say, the "ultimate form of political expression." And you're perfectly willing, seemingly, to support a cons utional rule that would, in essence, deprive a substantial portion of the populous from any realistic means of having anything other than a cursory use of that "ultimate form of political expression." I'm shocked that you don't find that in the least bit untenable.
I do. You've already said that contributions of money are the "ultimate form of political expression." I suppose, then, that contributions of time or services are somewhat lesser forms of political expression, since "ultimate" is a superlative. And, as such, by virtue of your own argument, you've already stated the difference between someone donating his or her time and someone paying the bill.
In any event, I think the most significant difference isn't that rank-and-file Americans are interested in becoming campaign managers for candidates. Rank-and-file Americans are interested in contributing money to candidates who reflect similar views or support particular policies. My point in this entire argument is that if contributions are essentially limitless on the upper end, many of those rank-and-file Americans won't have the same political voice that weathy Americans will. And, while you might think my view quaint, I don't think one's right to have a meaningful voice in the political process should ever be determined by the size of his or her bank account.
I guess my questions didn't really warrant any answers . . . .
Lying at election time. Who would have thought it.
I didn't know politicians lied, you mean they do. You mean they
might tell us something they will do and then don't do it.
You mean that groups misrepresent, sign up voters who are
not legal voters, pay people to vote and vote by using other
people's name. Oh, my. There ought to be a law.
Get real this crap has been going on since we have had elections.
What do you want me to say?
The First Amendment clearly prohibits the making of any law that abridges free speech. The framers have clearly -- and particularly -- intended that to mean political speech.
I don't think the government has any business telling me what to do with my property.
Figure out another way to control the politicians. Vote them out of office.
Bill Gates may have 40,000,000 times more money than I do but, he has the same number of votes on election day. And, if the masses are so easily swayed by the money pouring into campaigns during election season, they get what they deserve.
"if the masses are so easily swayed by the money pouring into campaigns during election season, "
Lots of money, and negative attack ads work, is why there is almost nothing but.
"they get what they deserve."
Much worse, WE ALL get what they deserve.
I was interested in getting answers to the many questions I posed in response to your extended retort. I thought that was what this forum was about.
Curious on both fronts. First, as Chief Justice Roberts' opinion notes, the First Amendment has never, in 216 years of American jurisprudence, been interpreted literally. That is why the law respects, for instance, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on certain types of speech. If the First Amendment was in any sense absolute, one could not be punished for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
I'm not sure how the Framers have "particularly" intended the First Amendment to apply to political speech, since the First Amendment itself makes no mention of any such speech. Of course, the First Amendment has been interpreted by Courts to be particularly vigilant in the protection of political expression. But at no point in American history has the First Amendment ever been understood to wholly prohibit the government from placing limitations on political expression that are narrowly tailored to meet compelling state interests. The balance tilts heavily against proscription, but there is undoubtedly some room for legislation.
Again, this strikes me as the paradox in your argument. You contend that money is the "ultimate form of political expression," yet suggest in the next breath argue that money does not sway campaigns during an election. Which is it? I can't believe that the "ultimate form of political expression" would ever be expression that, in your estimation, should have no real effect on a campaign. If contributions are a greater form of political expression than votes -- clearly, an inference from your argument -- then I don't get why campaigns wouldn't be swayed more by contributions.
Thus, while Bill Gates has as many votes as you have, he has a far greater capacity to engage in the "ultimate form of political expression" than you do. Why should anyone's right to exercise a form of political expression be dependent upon his socio-economic status? How does that strike any sort of balance between First Amendment rights and Equal Protection?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
