PDA

View Full Version : McCain upset at SCOTUS for ruling against McCain Fiengold


85Sooner
6/25/2007, 04:09 PM
Good or bad?

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Monday called the Supreme Court’s decision to weaken part of his campaign finance law “regrettable.”

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mccain-regrettable-decision-2007-06-25.html


WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.


The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

The decision could lead to a bigger role for corporations, unions and other interest groups in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campaign_finance_12
Jimminy Crimson
6/25/2007, 04:20 PM
Bad.
Jerk
6/25/2007, 04:29 PM
Good, if you like free speech.
Rhino
6/25/2007, 04:46 PM
Horribly, horribly bad.
NormanPride
6/25/2007, 05:02 PM
That's just what we need. More corporations in the next election. Crap.
yermom
6/25/2007, 05:03 PM
seems kinda silly to limit who can buy advertising space, especially if it's not actually a party or candidate...
85Sooner
6/25/2007, 05:06 PM
I actually feel it is good. Restriction of free speech or the making illegal any free speech I believe is against what this country was founded on. I believe it is in the constitution, But alot of politicos havn't read it :)
opksooner
6/25/2007, 05:08 PM
Good, if you like free speech.
Why don't they just make bribery legal and be done with it.
Ike
6/25/2007, 05:10 PM
I actually feel it is good. Restriction of free speech or the making illegal any free speech I believe is against what this country was founded on. I believe it is in the constitution, But alot of politicos havn't read it :)


We restrict free speech every day here though.


"Bong hits for Jesus" comes to mind.
Jerk
6/25/2007, 05:10 PM
Why don't they just make bribery legal and be done with it.

They already did. It's called Wellfare.
Harry Beanbag
6/25/2007, 05:12 PM
Why don't they just make bribery legal and be done with it.


Congress bribes each other for votes in every bill which I think is much worse than campaign finances. All of these idiots are multi-millionaires anyway.
85Sooner
6/25/2007, 07:03 PM
We restrict free speech every day here though.


"Bong hits for Jesus" comes to mind.


Actually it was determined that it could not happen during a school related activity.

I am reminded of the song summertime blues.

i called my congressman and he said quote I like to help you son but your too young to vote.:)
Scott D
6/25/2007, 07:12 PM
I actually feel it is good. Restriction of free speech or the making illegal any free speech I believe is against what this country was founded on. I believe it is in the constitution, But alot of politicos havn't read it :)

oh yeah this is good..

<Insert Candidate Here> for President, brought to you by Pepsi-Cola, the taste of another bought politician. :rolleyes:
Octavian
6/25/2007, 07:46 PM
good, if you like being marginalized.
Ike
6/25/2007, 11:20 PM
Actually it was determined that it could not happen during a school related activity.

I am reminded of the song summertime blues.

i called my congressman and he said quote I like to help you son but your too young to vote.:)

Still, it is a restriction of free speech (one thats been accepted for quite some time).

It's saying "yeah, you have free speech, but there are some times and places where you don't"
Vaevictis
6/25/2007, 11:32 PM
oh yeah this is good..

<Insert Candidate Here> for President, brought to you by Pepsi-Cola, the taste of another bought politician. :rolleyes:

Brawndo's Got What Plants Crave!
47straight
6/26/2007, 12:19 AM
There are other ways of achieving this particular goal of the McCain-Feingold bill that are not as restrictive on free speech. The biggest goal should be, IMO, transparency - who is paying for what. That should be doable.

I always have a hard time separating groups of citizens banding together to pool money to publicize their issue, from just plain vanilla corporations. The former is necessary if for no other reasons so that regular folks without tons of cash might actually be able to be heard. Otherwise, rich individuals would have the only voice. On the other hand, for-profit corporations aren't citizens and shouldn't be afforded rights as such, 19th century SCOTUS decisions be damned.