The W
Views: 98556765
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.8.07 2344
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Campaign Finance Upheld Register and log in to post!
(1177 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (9 total)
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 179/711
EXP: 1289122
For next: 25076

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 745 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#1 Posted on 10.12.03 0932.06
Reposted on: 10.12.10 0932.09
I find this to be one of the more frightening decisions recently by our beloved SCOTUS. I've got no problem with limiting soft money because I really don't think that money equals speech as some claim. But, based on the stories currently out, I've got a real problem with limiting political ads by interest groups. Political speech isn't protected speech? I'm really looking forward to reading this decision.

Tim

You might want a link. http://www.cnn.com/ 2003/LAW/12/10/scotus.campaign.finance.ap/ index.html
Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 275/2697
EXP: 8835690
For next: 153129

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#2 Posted on 10.12.03 0940.17
Reposted on: 10.12.10 0940.22
First, I am a liberal Democrat and I need to be up front. I am against any limits on campaign financing, even the ones before this latest mess. Whether we like it or not money = speech today. The government has no place in this other than insuring accuracy and truth in advertising. Do candidates with the most money often win? Well of course they do. Should the government be telling who they can give to and how much? Never. However, we should require full disclosure of who and how much. If you want to pass rules regarding access and insure all candidates get some airtime, fine. But I consider this medling a violation of the Bill of Rights.

Of course, I am also opposed to term limits of any kind. It violates the spirit of a democracy. If the people choose to elect Clinton or Reagan 10 times, that is there right. We need to omprove the literacy and knowledge of the voters, if we do that then finance reform and term limits wouldn't be necessary.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2572/4700
EXP: 21454889
For next: 381773

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1216 days
Last activity: 1013 days
#3 Posted on 10.12.03 0959.42
Reposted on: 10.12.10 1004.17
Another example of the Consitution of the United States being pissed on. I can't believe that SCOTUS did this. This one should have been cut and dry and they dropped the ball.

The Incumbency Protection Act rides again...
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 916/1493
EXP: 3920375
For next: 85704

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 118 days
Last activity: 41 days
#4 Posted on 10.12.03 1037.17
Reposted on: 10.12.10 1038.30
While I agree with Dr. Dirt, money = speech these days (and besides, if it is MY money, I should be able to do whatever I want with it), I can see how people can argue the other way, since it is speech in an indirect way.

However, I just can't see how the Supreme Court upheld the advertising part of the rules, as I see that directly tied to free speech (and the very free speech that the Constitution is suppose to protect, political free speech).
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1474/1759
EXP: 4900361
For next: 92509

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1262 days
Last activity: 28 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on 10.12.03 1311.08
Reposted on: 10.12.10 1312.00
You know... I have no problem limiting how money is contributed- I am not one of those that feels money=speech. But the AD restrictions- that is the killer for me. A private citizen is not allowed to buy an ad prior to an election expressing a political belief? Dangerous.... You can argue night and day about the money=speech connection, but The ad ban is clearly limiting speech- political at that, and exactly what the First Ammendment was intended to protect.

The Republicans screwed up BIG time letting this one through... and Bush SIGNING the thing? I guess it really is the politicians versus the sap voters after all....

(edited by Pool-Boy on 10.12.03 1111)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 279/2697
EXP: 8835690
For next: 153129

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#6 Posted on 10.12.03 1426.45
Reposted on: 10.12.10 1429.02
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    You know... I have no problem limiting how money is contributed- I am not one of those that feels money=speech. But the AD restrictions- that is the killer for me. A private citizen is not allowed to buy an ad prior to an election expressing a political belief? Dangerous.... You can argue night and day about the money=speech connection, but The ad ban is clearly limiting speech- political at that, and exactly what the First Ammendment was intended to protect.

    The Republicans screwed up BIG time letting this one through... and Bush SIGNING the thing? I guess it really is the politicians versus the sap voters after all....

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 10.12.03 1111)


The Republicans didn't screw up at all. This is what they wanted. When will all the strong Bush and Republican party supporters quit talking about them being the party of the people and for protecting our rights? Conservatves are no different than the Libs. They believe in free speech as long as it doesn't contradict them too much. Remember that if you critcize the war you are unamerican? I do.

Pool-Boy, we can say it isn't all we want but for federal office in particular, MONEY = SPEECH. Mostly because the voting public and the press tend to be very lazy. It doesn't have to be that way but it is.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 556/3356
EXP: 13182194
For next: 338349

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 10.12.03 1734.35
Reposted on: 10.12.10 1735.18
I tend to skew toward personal liberty, - but, it seems to me that we have a problem. First, we limit what an individual can give to a political candidate. I don't agree with that at all. But then (prior to McCain) we allowed unlimited individual giving to a political party or a pac or other political agency, obstentiously not representing a particular party.

I agree with Sen. McCain (and it pains me to agree with him on much of anything) that this is what allows the political machines and bad politicians to prosper.

Let's say I am Joe Boo, candidate for US Representative from Cleveland, running on the VooDoo party platform. And I am a great speaker and fundraiser and have raised the same amount as Pete Peterson and Joe Jacoby, my Republican and Democrat opponents.

But the Parties and draw in money from all over the US and advertise for their candidates. Even if the person who gave never heard of pete or joe. That sucks. I'd much rather see only monies personally handed to a candidate be used in a campaign. That way they gotta touch it and thank people for it.

I dunno. I guess I am against it. But I hate the PACs.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 313/330
EXP: 391177
For next: 13598

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3779 days
Last activity: 2845 days
#8 Posted on 11.12.03 0247.56
Reposted on: 11.12.10 0247.56
Scilea's dissent was brilliant, you all should take a peak when you have a chance.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 283/2697
EXP: 8835690
For next: 153129

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#9 Posted on 11.12.03 0835.34
Reposted on: 11.12.10 0841.03
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I tend to skew toward personal liberty, - but, it seems to me that we have a problem. First, we limit what an individual can give to a political candidate. I don't agree with that at all. But then (prior to McCain) we allowed unlimited individual giving to a political party or a pac or other political agency, obstentiously not representing a particular party.

    I agree with Sen. McCain (and it pains me to agree with him on much of anything) that this is what allows the political machines and bad politicians to prosper.

    Let's say I am Joe Boo, candidate for US Representative from Cleveland, running on the VooDoo party platform. And I am a great speaker and fundraiser and have raised the same amount as Pete Peterson and Joe Jacoby, my Republican and Democrat opponents.

    But the Parties and draw in money from all over the US and advertise for their candidates. Even if the person who gave never heard of pete or joe. That sucks. I'd much rather see only monies personally handed to a candidate be used in a campaign. That way they gotta touch it and thank people for it.

    I dunno. I guess I am against it. But I hate the PACs.


AWA, we the people allow these crap to prosper. We can take it back any time we choose but won't as long as most of us are content to be fat, dumb, and happy.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: John F'in Kerry
Next thread: So....
Previous thread: It's pretty close to official now
(1177 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Campaign Finance UpheldRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.326 seconds.