Just In: Supreme Court upholds portions of Key Campaign Finance Law

[La_Serpiente]

Supreme Court upholds key portions of campaign finance law

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The 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.

more...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/10/scotus.campaign.finance.ap/index.html

[Just Me]

1. Hmmm,...need more details,...

,...to figure whether this is good or bad,...

[Hawkeye-X]

2. My own interpretation

Basically what the Supreme Court is saying that Chimpy is no longer allowed to get $$ from corporations. I'll take snippet from the link:

"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."

All the money that has to come through has to be from individuals only, not corporate or PAC money. This is good news for Dems who has been trying to raise money individually, and not from corporate PAC money. Bad, bad news for Chimpy though -- who has been getting gazillions of now illegal dollars from his rich friends. It also dooms Republicans even further...

Hawkeye-X

[La_Serpiente]

3. So that is why Chimpy has been raising money all these months

He has been trying to get all the money he could before they ruled on this law.

[Hawkeye-X]

6. Now he has to stop...

and he'll probably be 100M short..

Hawkeye-X

[goforit]

28. Stop?.........Not this cartel!!!!.....Stealing is their greatest hobby!

They have been robbing America blind.
And this certainly won't stop them,unlike it will the Dems.

[janx]

29. It's even worse for the Chimp. He signed the bill fully expecting

the Supreme Court to overturn it.

They didn't.

[whatelseisnew]

4. Why do I doubt it?

[Frodo]

7. Hawkeye. I'm not sure it's the way you see it.

Shrub hasn't been getting any contributions that are "now illegal" (that we know of). All the "corporate donations" we credit him with are reports of how much people working for "company 'x'" donated, not the company itself.

The soft money restrictions hurt us far more than him, but the decision to ban adds 60 days prior to an election SHOULD help US.

[Just Me]

9. Does this impact groups like Moveon,...

,...or individuals like Soros?

I am definitely grateful for the Supremes putting the brakes on "soft money" contributions. Generally, a positive and levelling rule. And, I hope it's applied retroactively to Bush's hundred million to date,...wouldn't that be a pop!!!

[Bandit]

12. Actually it is going to hurt Democrats way more than it will the GOP

They raised the personal donation limit to two thousand dollars and most wealthy republicans have no problem with donating two thousand dollars from every one in their family. Amazing how a six month old baby can donate two thousand dollars but a legalimmigrant can not donate a nickel. The Democrats are going to be hit hard by this ruling of the new law. It does nothing to stop the real problem of too much money in politics.

[mobuto]

15. Not true

Permanent resident aliens are allowed to contribute to political campaigns as per FEC regulations.

[The White Rose]

24. Indeed. I can, and do. nt

:-)

[sybylla]

21. Campaign Finance Reform put a minimum age on contributors

I'm a member of a local dem party and discovered that kids have to be a certain age before they can be members in their own right because they cannot legally contribute to a political org/pac any longer. Since campaigns are pacs, this applies to them as well. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact age but if I recall they have to at least be teenagers.

[sybylla]

27. I just learned that the court struckdown the ban on money from minors

with this ruling. We are apparently back to kids of all ages being able to contribute.

[Goldust]

22. The devil is in the details

The bill also makes it illegal to air ads criticizing a politicians before an election. And the money it criminalizes is the type that the Democratic Party uses to catch up to Republicans.

Bye-bye free speech! The FEC can now take away your home, car, bank account etc. for saying something bad about a politician on TV or radio right before the election!

[Goldust]

23. It's the other way around

Bush and the Republicans have no problem raising "hard" money. That's actually the backbone of their fundraising machine.

Democrats, on the other hand, don't have as many people who can afford to write $2,000 personal checks on the spots. That's why more of the Democrats' money was "soft" money from unions.

This bill has killed the Democrats' ability to raise money. The fundraising gap between Republicans and Democrats has been getting even wider because the GOP wasn't as dependent on soft money.

This "campaign reform" act is the GOP's best friend.

[54anickel]

5. I dunno. Think this is in response to moveon and Soros $$$.

Since it is talking about "soft money". Used for ads that do not endorse any candidate directly. I think it might be bad, but like I said, I dunno. :shrug:

[Hawkeye-X]

8. Nowhere in the ruling

says that organizations such as MoveOn.com can make ads attacking * or Soros giving money to PAC to make ads either.. I think they are okay at this point.

Hawkeye-X

[Just Me]

14. If true,...that would be a fabulous ruling!!!

[mobuto]

13. That's not what soft money is

Soft money is when you contribute indirectly to a candidate by sending the money instead to a political party or its committee. Soros' Americans Coming Together is a 527 Committee that is (apparently) not covered by the ban, as long as it refrains from certain political activities like endorsing candidates.

[54anickel]

16. Thanks. That's good. Was afraid they were after moveon. n/t

[maddogesq]

10. It's not perfect, but it's better than a kick in the arse just the same.

Judge Sandra might just vindicate herself (a little bit anyway) in my little book or good and bad for what she took part in back in 2000. Judge OConnor, I hope Santa is good to you, because you have been a good little judge this year. She was the deciding vote that upheld McCain/Feingold. Golly, the NRA, Right to Life, and other wacko groups have got to be reeling from all of this.

OH HAPPY DAY! The law, or this decision, is not perfect, but it surely is better than a kick in the arse.

[mobuto]

11. Law is completely upheld

I don't think anybody's read the whole 300 page opinion yet (and if anybody has, well that's awful scary), but it would appear that the Court upheld every major component of McCain-Feingold, including the 60-day ban on advertising and the ban of soft money.

This is excellent and surprising news; unfortunately it will hurt Dems in the short-run. In the long run, we'll benefit and the country will benefit.

[cspiguy]

17. the 60 day ban on free speech is not good news.

* can say whatever he wants and will get coverage. Noone can mobilize and effectively respond. It's why they gave up the money part so easily.

[Hawkeye-X]

18. televised ads are banned

noone is stopping our candidate from going to every place and give interviews to a local rag or even go to rallies..

Hawkeye-X

[mobuto]

20. Televised ads are not banned

Candidates are - I understand- allowed to run ads. Issue-advocacy organizations, labor-unions and corporations -- like the NRA, Right to Life, Club for Growth, etc. -- but also like the Sierra Club and NARAL are prohibited.

Its designed to block the largely anonymous attack ads that have appeared in recent elections, and I think the ban is a good thing.

[janx]

30. Same here! This means that those anonymous attack ads

(funded by groups) against candidates will be gone 60 days before an election.

I didn't see too many of those, previously, funded by Sierra or NARAL. Maybe I'm mistaken.

The wingnuts had far more of those, and they were fairly insidious.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. This Will Split Part of the Republican Base

The Freepers are fuming. So I am glad.

DTH

[PaDUer]

26. Do you have a

link to their thread on this? Thanks!

[janx]

31. Here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1037638/posts?q=1&&page=1


They're out of their minds about it. (Not that this is unusual.)

[kskiska]

25. Where's Mitch McConnell?

I remember how just after * signed the bill Mitch defiantly marched out to the TV cameras to announce that he intended to overturn it in court.

[janx]

32. Expect Faux News, though, to take up the slack during the

60-day period preceding an election...

[Emoto]

33. Abridging free speech is bad

Think about this out of the context of the present election cycle. Do so because we must see the forest, not the particular trees that face us now. The marketplace of ideas cannot find the truth when opinions are stifled.

Watch how this might develop over the course of years. Make no mistake about it, McCain-Feingold is a major infringement of the First Amendment. When it fails to accomplish the goal of taking money out of politics, there will be cries for more and more "common sense regulation" of free speech, and one of our most important freedoms will be eroded and washed away down the toilet of government interference. The founding fathers put the Bill of Rights into place to prevent the exact sort of thing that is happening now. Between this and the partiot act, I am not sure what freedom remains.

Scalia:

"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."