Yup, we're boned: Supreme Court kills campaign finance reform

[Kidlicious]

Thankfully, I've just about lost faith in democracy anyway.

What does a court ruling have to do with democracy?

[flash9286]

And instead of apologizing for violating the Constitution, McCain is upset at the court?

Why wouldn't you be? The original meaning of the first amendment probably only applied to laws imposing prior restraints. This is just judicial activism.

[Caligastia]

I disagree.

[Arrian]

That's not the consensus view, at least as far as I've read. There's a reason that this has been a decidedly left-right issue.

I guess I disagree with the concensus view, then. I think the upshot here isn't GOP wins Dems lose. I think the Dems will simply whore themselves to corporations even more than they currently do. Believing that this is good news for the GOP and bad news for the Dems requires believing that the Dems are relatively bad at getting money from corporations, right?

-Arrian

[rah]

I can follow their logic even though I don't really agree that it applies.
And I say both parties win and the American People lose. It will be harder for candidates to control their own message and the general population is going to have more junk to sort through.

[Jon Miller]

The reason why this is somewhat of a left-rightissue is that the dems are not left and might be driven even further from the left with this.

JM

[Guynemer]

Jon Miller speaks the truth.

[Solomwi]

I guess I disagree with the concensus view, then. I think the upshot here isn't GOP wins Dems lose. I think the Dems will simply whore themselves to corporations even more than they currently do. Believing that this is good news for the GOP and bad news for the Dems requires believing that the Dems are relatively bad at getting money from corporations, right?

-Arrian

Your upshot is right, I think, but not because Dems will whore themselves to corporations more. I expect the labor unions to take more advantage of this ruling than corporations. Sec. 203 applied equally to both.

[Ben Kenobi]

Considering McCain lost, thank God almighty we are free at last!

[Kuciwalker]

The reason why this is somewhat of a left-rightissue is that the dems are not left and might be driven even further from the left with this.

JM

The reason this is a left-right issue is because real leftists think they should be able to control how people think.

[Darius871]

I guess I disagree with the concensus view, then. I think the upshot here isn't GOP wins Dems lose. I think the Dems will simply whore themselves to corporations even more than they currently do. Believing that this is good news for the GOP and bad news for the Dems requires believing that the Dems are relatively bad at getting money from corporations, right?

-Arrian

Of course the Dems do and will continue to get piles of money from corporations, but that doesn't mean they're not "relatively" worse at courting them. For instance, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin might give some Dems a grip to get this or that sweet new contract, KBR might do the same to build this or that set of school expansions, MetLife might be keen on expanded healthcare delaying some term policyholders' deaths, etc. etc. etc., but at the end of the day a generally smothering pro-union, pro-regulation, pro-cap-and-trade, tax-increasing platform will not be amenable to the profit margins of most corporations. That's not a commentary on what's good or bad policy, just an observation about what's in whose economic interests.

[Ben Kenobi]

The reason this is a left-right issue is because real leftists think they should be able to control how people think.

Sig material.

[Darius871]

The original meaning of the first amendment probably only applied to laws imposing prior restraints.

While you're right that the scholarly consensus is that the original intent left in place post-hoc remedies like defamation or sedition, the Court's decision this week specifically analogized to prior restraint to not only evade your argument but use it.

This regulatory scheme may not be a prior restraint on speech in the strict sense of that term, for prospective speakers are not compelled by law to seek an advisory opinion from the FEC before the speech takes place. Cf. Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 712-713, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931). As a practical matter, however, given the complexity of the regulations and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker who wants to avoid threats of criminal liability and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak. See 2 U.S.C. § 437f; 11 CFR § 112.1. These onerous restrictions thus function as the equivalent of prior restraint by giving the FEC power analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century England, laws and governmental practices of the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit. See Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 320, 122 S.Ct. 775, 151 L.Ed.2d 783 (2002); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451-452, 58 S.Ct. 666, 82 L.Ed. 949 (1938); Near, supra, at 713-714. Because the FEC's “business is to censor, there inheres the danger that [it] may well be less responsive than a court-part of an independent branch of government-to the constitutionally protected interests in free expression.” Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 57-58, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965). When the FEC issues advisory opinions that prohibit speech, “[m]any persons, rather than undertake the considerable burden (and sometimes risk) of vindicating their rights through case-by-case litigation, will choose simply to abstain from protected speech-harming not only themselves but society as a whole, which is deprived of an uninhibited marketplace of ideas.” Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 119, 123 S.Ct. 2191, 156 L.Ed.2d 148 (2003) (citation omitted). Consequently, “the censor's determination may in practice be final.” Freedman, supra, at 58.

[Drake Tungsten]

Is Keith Olbermann Losing It?

[duke o' york]

Sig material.

Jon Miller speaks the truth.

No, that's sig material.