Supremes uphold McCain-Feingold!

[Berzerker]

The Alien and Sedition Act II

gopher -

Free speech? How in the heck is massive, unregulated monies given to political parties in the form of an "issue ad" that cannot say 7 certain words be classified as a form of public debate or regulated opinions? Do the little green pieces of paper talk?

The money isn't unregulated, and yes, the issue is free speech. Do you think the Framers believed free speech meant only expressing your opinion as long as no money was involved to spread your ideas? Would that apply to a free press as well?

What I find very ironic is that most of the people who classify the issue ads as free speech turn around and call for a ban on flag burning. Jigga what?

Then use that argument on them, not me. And at least they advocate amending the Constitution to ban flag burning, here the SCOTUS has simply re-written the 1st Amendment....again.

[Berzerker]

I'm not sorry to see the politicians lose a bit of their feed trough

You have it backwards, this only empowers politicians more by suppressing critics. They didn't just ban certain forms of campaign financing which the parties will get around via loopholes, they made it illegal for certain special interests which include citizens' groups from running ads against politicians during the most relevant time during a campaign. Notice how the major candidates haven't been slowed down one bit when raising funds with these laws in place?

but it is strange how they would strike down child porn laws then uphold laws banning political speech for several weeks leading up to an election.

They didn't strike down child porn laws, the SCOTUS ruled that porn involving non-existent children, i.e., fictional representations, art, etc., did not qualify as child porn since no child was used.

[gopher]

Ah, but money is still allowed, Berz, just in limited amounts. You can still give $ to the candidate. But the issue is not individual donors, but of massive enterprizes who subvert the system through back-channels. The framers had no idea that massive conglomerates could simply dump massive funds into the warchest of politicians. Their equivelent would be the Hudson's Bay Company secretly financing the Whigs. Besides, the framers set a guideline to the Constitution, allowing it to be changed.

Do I think that free speech has been limited by the McCain-Feingold? No. Those organizations which contributed soft money can still be heard, and still represent the issues at hand. Has democracy become a bit more about the people? Hopefully. And that, my friends, is a victory for all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Way to go Supremes!! Only if we could have elected McCain in the last election .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Only if we could have elected McCain in the last election .

He's doing less damage to my rights where he is. I must say though. This decision is making me seriously consider rethinking my support for Lieberman considering the scary views he holds on another form of speech (ie video games). I was hoping the Court would clamp down on this sort of idiocy. Sadly I was mistaken.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If by idiocy you mean great decision .

Thankfully we forced Bush to sign this good law. Get interest groups out from buying politicians.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If by idiocy you mean great decision .

No, I mean completely assanine and an offensive rewriting of the 1st Amendment that reeks of nothing more than a crass way to justify an incumbent protection act..

[Imran Siddiqui]

Free speech can take a back seat to less corrupt politicians. The more money we can take out of politics the better. And besides, I don't even really consider it free speech anyway.

[SlowwHand]

Fooled me. I thought this was a Diana Ross endorsement.

[Caligastia]

Under this law, if a group of my friends and I (not that we would agree ) pooled our money we would not be able to use it to run a political ad. That's a restriction of free speech IMO.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Free speech can take a back seat to ...

You know what. I agree with you. Gaging groups like the ACLU and the NRA that wish to exercise thier right to be critical of the government is an excellent idea. I don't know why anyone ever thought of it before now. I also love the idea of letting the lunatics in Congress run the asylum when it comes to deciding the importance of free speech vs "reform."

[Sprayber]

Appearence over substance is a Washington tradition....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Gaging groups like the ACLU and the NRA that wish to exercise thier right to be critical of the government is an excellent idea.

Yes, this is really gaging them. OMG, they can't run ads that mention politicians by name 30 days before the election (while of course they can do so before those 30 days as much as they want)! How horrible, the sky is falling!

Really... I thought you were above this Chicken Little nonsense.