Has anyone found one editorial praising the Supreme Court's Campaign

[WCGreen]

Finance ruling...

Anyone...

[calico1]

1. Some newspaper from CO I think..

I saw the post earlier this morning. I am trying to find it...

[cali]

2. yeah. they've got some posted over in the sewer of freepwadville.

[elleng]

3. I think WSJ does/did.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. I expected the NY Daily News to make mention today.

Nothing.

Owner: neo-con billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman

Perhaps there was something in yesterday's; I doubt it. Our rulers are maintaining a low profile right about now, I suspect. News pages today packed with gibberish about the Jets and the Edwardses.


Times had a barn-burner ( i.e. more outraged than even I was) yesterday, that I'm assuming was already posted here.

[quantass]

5. My Guess is the Editorials will keep Hush...Dont want to cause widespread Anger by the Peasents

[WCGreen]

6. I found this explanation editorial over on CNet...

It is rationalizing the ruling by injecting the web and blogs into the mix.

It's a stretch but an interesting read.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10439023-38.html



Here is a snippet of the rationalization.


Kennedy added: "Rapid changes in technology--and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression--counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social-networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues."

Federal law generally prohibits for-profit and nonprofit corporations and unions from paying to advocate the election of or defeat of a political candidate. The 2002 McCain-Feingold law expanded that prohibition to include so-called electioneering communications, defined as any "broadcast, cable, or satellite communication" that even "refers to" a candidate for federal office and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Thursday's ruling invalidates many of those requirements, meaning that nonprofit and for-profit corporations and labor unions will be able to spend money on political films, advertisements, YouTube videos, and so on. But the decision comes with two important caveats: first, none of that money will be permitted to go directly to political candidates. Second, an 8-1 majority of the court upheld a disclosure requirement applying to those groups spending money on the political ads or other materials.

[kstewart33]

7. The Denver Post.

Link: http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_14242352

[depakid]

8. Try Murdoch's Wall Street Journal

I won't read dishonest unethical publications, but one of them popped up today on Google news before I reconfigured Firefox to block Fox and WSJ again.

[Justpat]

9. Yesterday's NY Post

had nothing but high praise for the decision.

The NY Post is the ultimate right wing rag so it was to be expected.

[timeforpeace]

10. They are all corporations so that is odd.

[donco6]

11. Yes.

http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_14242352

A major victory for free speech
A decision by the Supreme Court reverses decades of laws that only served to drive campaign finance underground.

By The Denver Post
Posted: 01/22/2010 01:00:00 AM MST


The Supreme Court struck a vital blow for free speech Thursday by ruling that government cannot outlaw corporate spending in the elections of political candidates.

The complex web of campaign spending restrictions put in place over the decades, most recently with the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, have created a flawed system that limits political speech and encourages indirect giving that can make political campaigns unaccountable.

When McCain-Feingold passed, its stated intention was to take money and corruption out of politics. It failed in both regards. Instead, its ambiguous and complex provisions unleashed a number of unintended consequences with a negative and chilling effect on free speech.

To illustrate the problem, the justices explained in the majority opinion that a group like the Sierra Club would be breaking the law if it ran an advertisement within 60 days of an election "that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests."



Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_14242352#ixzz0dS1u1tdU

[MadBadger]

12. I havent checked the Post or the Journal.

[struggle4progress]

13. I found a few: Las Vegas Review liked it; so did Deseret News; and WSJ and Fox