Supreme Court, 5-4 decision, upholds bans on soft money donations. I haven't reviewed the actual decision, but it appears that the absurd idea that money=speech has been repudiated. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52529-2003Dec10.html Hooray for democracy!
Haven't read the decision either yet. Do you think they're really overturning Buckley? That would be something.
Just from looking at the syllabus, they're not overturning Buckley, so much as acknowledging that placing restrictions on political giving is subject to a lesser standard than strict scrutiny (sort of a modified Time, Place, Manner test I suppose) and then finding that the Campaign Reform Act meets that lesser standard. About the only victory for the pro-money crowd is that children can't be prohibited from making political donations, so there's still a small loophole left. The Court avoided evaluating some of the sections by finding the plaintiffs lacked standing.
But they won't have any of their own money thanks to those pesky child labor laws. They'd have to give someone else's money as their own, which would be illegal. Very small loophole indeed
> the absurd idea that money=speech has been repudiated Why is it an absurd idea? Why shouldn't I be able to give money to whomever I wish?
Given that the Gift Tax does not kick in until gifts are over $10,000, it'd be pretty easy for me to give a gift of $2,000 to my dyed-in-the-wool-Republican 10-month old daughter (imaginary), and then have $4,000 coming from the Galt family coffers to the Grand Old Party.
I wasn't worried about the Gift Tax. I was worried about stories of CEOs who give their employees cash or bonuses so the employees could give money to a political campaign. I would think it would be just as illegal if my father gave me $2000 to give to a political party because he had it and I didn't and he'd already given his $2000.
What a horrible decision, but I can't blame the SCOTUS. I have to blame the jackanapes in Congress who crafted and voted for this law in the first place. If AUH2O were alive he'd be kicking John McCain's ass up and down the halls of Congress.
"The court also voted 5-4 to uphold restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates." The bans on ads before an election is the main reason I believe that it is a horrible decision. Why should the government have the power to create an arbitrary time frame in which an individual or a group can't run a political ad before an election? If I want to help a candidate I agree with to win, the only way I'm going to reach a mass market is through radio or television. By denying me the ability to place an ad on television or radio, I believe the government is infringing on my 1st amendment rights. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS disagrees with that. I also disagree with the banning of soft money and limiting of campaign contributions. According to, Ballot Access News, such parties at Teddy Roosevelts' Progressive Party, the Reform Party, and even the Communist Party! have all benefited from individuals donating large sums of money to either get the party started (P!nk anyone? ) or to help in continuing operations of a party. By limiting contributions you're potentially stifiling the growth of third parties and limiting the ability of citizens to promote an ideology or party they believe in. Again, though, the SCOTUS disagrees with that.
They didn't say you weren't allowed to run ads. They restricted the types of ads you could run. There's a big difference there. If they had said you can't run political ads for three weeks before an election, I would have had a problem with it. By the way, this is not the first time that a) speech rights have been restricted or b) television & radio ads have been restricted. I don't know if it's the first time such restrictions have been in relation to politics, however. I'm not certain that anybody brought up third parties in relation to McCain / Feingold so I'm not sure it's really relevant. I would also add on a personal note that if a political party today relied on a huge cash infusion from a small group of individuals I might question their broad appeal and therefore their ability to serve as a viable third party. Also don't forget how Ross Perot got around this in 1992 without even having legal restrictions - he basically started a third party by financing himself and the party kind of grew around him.
Hand $2000 to your wife and expect her to give it to a candidate other than Steve Madden or Jimmy Choo?
First, I would probably disagree with the restrictions placed on ads in other areas besides politics, but then again if I were POTUS I'd probably put Howard Stern in as head of the FCC. So there ya go. Second, the government has decided that it has the power to ban political ads based on its own criteria. To me that's a blow against free speech, but I think we're going to disagree on the severity (or complete lack thereof) of that. Third, in an earlier court decision on McCain-Feingold, the Libertarian Party mentioned the problems that McCain-Feingold could cause to third parties. Lastly, I would disagree that the a party started by a few guys wouldn't have broad appeal. For instance, a number of plain paleo-conservatives and not the "neo-" kind feel that the Bush administration is failing on small government. Let's say that St. Phillip Anschutz of AEG and His Holiness Lamar Hunt were that type of conservative, and instead of SSS's they decided to start the Conservative Party, with its main planks being a freeze on government spending and a balanced budget. By infusing large sums of cash, they could instantly build the political infrastructure needed to get on state ballots and effectively get thier message out and challenge the GOP for the conservative vote. I realize that GP members like SobearCAL might disagree with my view, since I believe GP support was built slowly and steadily, but having to raise money in small chunks makes it harder on the third parties. Wow, I really got off on a rant on that last point. Yeesh. .
IF I read the decision correctly, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge this rule, and so has not actually issued a judgment on whether this provision is constitutional or not. I think the Court allowed for a party to bring a later challenge against the law on an "as applied" basis, but held that on its face treating third parties the same as first and second parties, was valid. Again, the opinion is complex, so I'm not betting my reputation on it, but I think there's an avenue for a third party to make the argument you're concerned with when and if it ever actually happens to them.
The ads I have in mind are bans on cigarette ads on TV and radio and restrictions on when liquor ads can be run (i.e. you can't run a Coor's Light commercial during Sesame Street). I don't think even Howard Stern finds those restrictions offensive. Again, I refer you to Ross Perot. I can't imagine that these laws prevent an insanely rich individual from self-funding a political run. That's what Perot did in '92. If the message has appeal, people will follow.
Well, so much for my legal prognostication abilities. I really believed that this court, which tolerates the dissemination of virtual child pornography under the auspices of free speech, would completely toss out this law since a. ACTUAL quid pro quo payoffs are already punishable and b. You should never impose legal restrictions purely on the basis of the "appearance" of corruption. Cartoon pedophilia is fine, but issue ads by the ACLU or the NRA a fortnight before election?? But, heck, what do I know? Other than the fact this court, in the progression of some its rulings, brings new meaning to the word "incoherent."
I would love to see a link to a decision by the Supreme Court upholding the right to disseminate child pornography.
Of course, it's VIRTUAL child pornography that can't be banned, according to the court. But an "untimely" issue ad from the AFL CIO is prohibited. It's a topsy turvy world we live in sometimes.
I don't necessarily agree with their logic, but I understand how they came to the conclusions that they did.
> I can't imagine that these laws prevent an > insanely rich individual from self-funding a > political run. They don't, but how can that be a good thing? Why is it ok for a rich person to use unlimited funding on himself, but illegal for a rich person to fund without limit the Bundle of Sticks party which consists of poor me? Why is it right that a rich man with free time and charisma is more able to get his political message across than a rich man who is busy or unelectably ugly or introverted? The current system is hopelessly inconsistant and complicated. There should either be no rules at all (eveny one spend money however they wish) or the broadcast media funding system should be totally run by the government. The current system is neither free nor does it have any semblance of being run in the best interest of democracy. Instead, it guarantees only that elected officials have to spend time they should be using on their jobs to get more funding.
My point being that there's nothing stopping Rich Guy from running himself as the candidate for the Bundle of Sticks party. I didn't say it was right. I just said it was a way to get around the contribution limits. You'll never hear me disagree with that (except perhaps on the spelling of inconsistent ) That's one way. I'm not sure it's the right way, but the more ideas there are, the more likely one of them will be the right one. No argument here.