Campaign finance reform before the Supremes

[DealsGapRider]

Forgive me if this issue has already been discussed today...I have not been on DU much of the day.

Am I the only one here who is holding out hope that the Supreme Court will overturn the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law? I think this law is absolutely atrocious.

The soft money ban is one thing (I don't think it will work, but it's not particularly onerous), but the restrictions on citizen groups running campaign ads that simply mention the name of a federal candidate 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election are fundamentally unconstitutional. Christ, if you ran a TV ad that simply said, "Congresswoman Smith voted no on HR 2334" -- which is a matter of public record -- you could be in violation of federal law.

Think about it: a bunch of members of Congress passing laws that forbid THE PEOPLE from criticizing members of Congress? And progressives support this concept? Jesus Christ! :wtf:

[CO Liberal]

1. Wonder What Diana Ross Will Have to Say .....

[edward]

2. Does Ken Starr arguing for Mitch McConnell(sp) bother you?

[DealsGapRider]

3. No.

I'm not going to support relinquishing my constitutional rights just because someone on the same side of the issue as me is icky.

[edward]

4. Not icky. Record of corruption.

McConnell defines corruption. Always defends any and all money given to congress for any reason, anytime. Legalized bribery.
If free speech=money, only millionares can afford to be free.

[DealsGapRider]

5. That is lazy, simplistic logic.

"If free speech=money, only millionares can afford to be free."

Please. If a bunch of poor citizens banded their money together to, say, run a radio ad denouncing a local Republican congressman a month before the general election, they would be prevented from doing so under this bill. Sounds like you're all right with that.

[edward]

6. Thanks for calling me lazy.

what else you want to talk about?

[DealsGapRider]

7. Sorry.

I'm just saying, if you're going to support the legislation, do so with a real argument, not some trite remark about how only the rich are affected by it (emphatically false) and how that must be a good thing.

[edward]

9. Not my point about the rich.

Was asking you if you agreed with the Supreme Court that money=free speech. I don't; it's a terrible idea.
Where did this idea come from that millions of dollars can be funnell
ed into any public official because he/she needs it for a campaign?
That's the problem.

[DealsGapRider]

11. I'm not concerned so much with the limits on contributions to candidates.

Again, the soft money provision doesn't bother me.

What kills me is the fact that this bill adds radical new restrictions to the people's right to engage in political advocacy prior to elections...just when such advocacy is most important. It literally criminalizes actions such as running TV ads that criticize federal candidates. Let me say that again -- it removes the right of citizens to criticize members of the government. Talk about Orwellian.

As for whether money equals speech, yes I think it does. You can't disseminate political ideas in today's media market without money. Restricting the right of people to make advertising purchases restricts their ability to broadcast their message. It limits political speech. It's like saying that we have a constitutional right to travel, but limits the amount of gasoline we can buy to a cup per month.

[edward]

12. We disagree about the first amendment to the Constitution.

Free speech does not mean right to access. Campaign laws supercede any universal("liberal")right to free speech.

But let me say that rights have to be balanced. Even if your point has some validity, the question is how it sits with what is good for the country. During the last world wars we did ration many things like gasoline and nylon.

[DealsGapRider]

13. I just can't understand how this is an issue that resonates...

...with progressives. On one hand, DUers are vociferously opposed to assaults on civil liberties contained in the Patriot Act, but they are utterly unconcerned with assaults on free speech in the McCain-Feingold bill.

This board is full of all sorts of hysterical posts about how the country is turning into a dictatorship, how the rights of the people are being abridged, by Bush and Co. And right in front of their face is a bill that tells citizens that during certain times of the year, they can't criticize their president and can't criticize their members of Congress. And what do all the liberals do? Cheer!

What's wrong with everybody?

[edward]

14. Maybe it's not an assault on free speech.

We used to have a fairness doctrine, which said that any mention or advocacy of a candidate(during election time)had to have equal time given to the opposing candidate.
We've come a long, disastrous, way from there.
Deregulation is not the answer. And money is not free speech.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Yeah - Imagine a world where the NRA can't destroy any candidate...

that crosses it's path. Shocking.

[userdave2061]

16. Imagine that the Sierra Club can't assign blame to any candidate...

that screws the environment. Shocking indeed.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Yeah, The Sierra Club matches the NRA dollar-for-dollar...

The Sierra Club - an unstoppable force in American politics. :eyes:

[Booberdawg]

10. No - I hope Campaign Finance Bill sticks

[Clete]

15. If it's that atrocious then the Supreme Court will probably

pass it, unfortunately.