http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6500-2003May2.html Gee, I didn't see this coming. This ill-conceived and rushed attempt at campaign finance reform may end up setting back the mere idea of CFR ten years or more.
I disagree with the courts ruling, and hope the Supreme Court sets it right. The policies of McCain/Feingold are a much needed change to the nature of campaigning. By banning soft money donations, you help to curb the trend of corporations effectively buying policy votes. Having a group like the NRA give millions of dollars to political campaigns is thinly veiled blackmail (vote the wrong way of gun control policy and there won't be money for a next term). On top of that, by banning the issue ads in the weeks prior to primary and general election day, the law cuts down mudslinging ads (something utilized with great success unfortunately). I think the court overstepped their bounds on this one. Banning political ads that are nothing but a thin attempt to slander a candidate is not a violation of free speech. Banning backroom corporate bribery is not unconstitutional. This is an unpopular law because it helps to give more opportunity to those not immensely wealthy to make a run at political office. It threatens the job security of those in power, because they won't be able to outspend opponents as easily as they once did. It may not be popular to those in control right now, but it's still the right thing to do.
It may be mudslinging, but those organizations still have first amendment protection. You can't just turn it off because an election approaches. If political ads approach slander, then deal with that, but don't restrict someone's speech. Besides, where you see an end to mudslinging, I see a confusing mess where some "get out the vote" efforts might be allowed, and some might be banned, based on arbitrary guidelines and enforcement. I'm all for opening up the political process, but this wasn't the way to go about it. People were stepping all over each other to point out the First Amendment pitfalls in this legislation when it was being debated. So, you'll forgive me if this ruling doesn't come as much of a shock.
What you meant to say? Anyway, this is a pathetic day for American democracy. Er...American plutocracy.
Well, it probably won't -- it will probably uphold the district court ruling. Not because the court leans conservative, but because this particular legislation is incredibly flawed. The aim of campaign finance reform is well-intended, but the provisions of this bill were so obviously counter to 1st amendment principles that this thing was doomed from the get go. And this catch phrase -- "money isn't speech" -- is a red herring.
It sounds jaded, but controlling television ads is not restricting free speech. If that were the case, they wouldn't be able to set guidelines for TV, advertising or anything like that. There are plenty of FCC regulations and guidelines on what, when and how much you can advertise something. What is a political campaign if not advertising? Regulating these ads is NOT a free speech violation.
Corporations (ie: Nike) like to claim they deserve free speech. In fact, they believe it is their Constitutional right to actually lie. Lie? As in not tell the whole truth? Yes. Thus, here is the link to this thread. These ads mentioned may be lies or spins on the truth, but here is my question. Is this protected? The thing that gets me is this. A candidate would be silly to say something so silly and outlandish that his/her credibility would be questioned. But, some unkown (re: not obvious to the common voter) can spend money and say what they want in favor or against the other guy. Then again, if we allow a candidate to spend any and all of his own money to run for office, which is OK in my book, shouldn't we allow any concerned citizen (corporate citizen) to spend thier money for causes they "believe" in? Or, could that ride the fine line of laundering cash to a candidate? This is where I can agree with the legislation being flawed.
I agree with Karl The right of Americans to bribe their representatives should never be infringed. The only issue I have with this whole thing is that voters aren't allowed into the system. It would be so much more fair and judicious if voters could band together in blocs and sell their votes to the highest bidder. Why not? It's the American way. Why shouldn't we profit from the system?