Parts of campaign finance law struck down [Archive]

Docta

02 May 2003, 06:21 PM

shew! just in time for fundraising for the upcoming election.

good thing they put this on the special fast track.

f'n unreal

--------------------------------------------

Parts of campaign finance law struck down

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By SHARON THEIMER

May 2, 2003 *|* WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal court Friday struck down most of a ban on the use of large corporate and union political contributions by political parties, casting into doubt the future of the campaign finance law that was supposed to govern next year's high-stakes presidential election.

The court also ruled unconstitutional new restrictions on election-time political ads by special interest groups and others. It barred the federal government from enforcing them and all other parts of the law it struck down.

The ruling clears the way for an immediate appeal by the losing parties to the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court's decision will lay the ground rules for the 2004 presidential election and beyond.

The decision is a victory for the Republican National Committee and dozens of interest groups, who contended that the law would undermine their ability to participate in politics. It is a loss for Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin who fought for years to get a new law enacted. They argued that it was time to end the corrupting influence of big money in politics.

The ruling came from a special three-member, fast-track panel of Appeals Court Judge Karen Henderson, District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly and District Judge Richard Leon.

In a 2-1 vote, the court ruled that political parties can raise corporate and union contributions for general party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration but cannot use it for issue advertising.

Also voting 2-1, the court struck down a provision barring a range of interest groups from airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts in the month before a primary election and within two months of a general election.

The court made its ruling effective immediately, barring the Federal Election Commission from enforcing the restrictions it struck down.

The new campaign finance law took effect Nov. 6, forcing an immediate change in party fund raising.

It prohibited the national party committees from raising contributions known as "soft money" from corporations, unions and others. The Democratic and Republican parties have collected the unlimited checks in ever-increasing amounts: The fall election saw some contributions of $1 million and more. The parties were allowed to use the money on general party-building activities such as voter registration drives and issue ads.

DudeMan

02 May 2003, 10:32 PM

Yeah well, we all pretty much knew that large portions of this law would be declared unconstitutional. Hell, the legislator dudes themselves knew this when they voted for it in the first place.

Ironically, it has looked thus far as though the no soft money part 'favors' republicans since they have developed a much much bigger list of small contributors, versus the dems, who rely on a smaller number of big contributors from the ranks of the labor unions and trial lawyers. Intersting that the 'party of the people' has a lot fewer small contributors than the 'party of the powerful', but that's another thread.

The biggest problem with campaign finance reform is that they put too much regulation on campaigns and free speech. True campaign reform would open up the gates for anyone and everyone to give as much money as they wish and say what they want to say -- the only caveat is that it goes in the public record. Yes, there would be more money flowing into politics, but with full disclosure, candidates and public interest groups and the media could publicize that, which would act as a check and balance. But, they chose to go the other route toward greater regulation, and that won't really solve anything.

Docta

03 May 2003, 07:19 AM

you f'n amaze me dude. this is not a repub/dem thing, look at the authors of the legislation.

without such legislation, all of our politicians (unless they are independantyly wealthy) are completly hog-tied to the g'damned corporate interests in every decision they make for um the people.

slow-dog

03 May 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Docta
you f'n amaze me dude. this is not a repub/dem thing, look at the authors of the legislation.

without such legislation, all of our politicians (unless they are independantyly wealthy) are completly hog-tied to the g'damned corporate interests in every decision they make for um the people.

Better get working on that 1st amendment rewrite then..................

RichmondVA

03 May 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by DudeMan
Intersting that the 'party of the people' has a lot fewer small contributors than the 'party of the powerful', but that's another thread.

Yeah, but look at it another way. It's kind of an extension of overall political philosophy. Without trying to make any value judgements, it's like:

Republicans-- You want something done, do it yourself. Don't trust others to do things for you. Large groups and powerful leaders lead to corruption. It's about competition, and hardwork and brilliant thinking are what wins competitions.

Democrats-- You want something done, pool your cash and pay someone powerful do it for you. Join together and take advantage of group strength.

As much as I hate the way campaigns are run, I have to agree with this ruling. I don't see any reason why a group or individual should not be allowed to express their opinion simply because of the content of their speech, especially political speech. That's what the first amendment is all about.

It's a shame. Feingold and McCain are (were) two of my favorite polticians, and I agree entirely with what they are trying to do. I really want to suport the bill, I just can't.

Sovrana

03 May 2003, 12:38 PM

for anyone who thinks that the campaign finance law is a threat to free speech, you are off the mark, poisoned by the language used by the current administration.

Bush's speech is not free....it's purchased by big corporations. Furthermore, the right to free speech is a right of the people, NOT corporations!

You just keep spinning this shit and maybe you will find that while you are defending the speech of corps that support the current administration, the White House (with the help of corporate money) has silenced you the individual with the Patriot Act.

It's a dizzying web the administration as constructed and many of you are allowing yourself to be trapped in it.

Wake up dammit!

Docta

03 May 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by RichmondVA

It's a shame. Feingold and McCain are (were) two of my favorite polticians...

were?

BigSugar

04 May 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana
for anyone who thinks that the campaign finance law is a threat to free speech, you are off the mark, poisoned by the language used by the current administration.

Bush's speech is not free....it's purchased by big corporations. Furthermore, the right to free speech is a right of the people, NOT corporations!

You just keep spinning this shit and maybe you will find that while you are defending the speech of corps that support the current administration, the White House (with the help of corporate money) has silenced you the individual with the Patriot Act.

It's a dizzying web the administration as constructed and many of you are allowing yourself to be trapped in it.

Wake up dammit!

good god....what drivel.....stow your hatred of Bush in a basket somewhere and wake yourself up....

Sovrana

04 May 2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by BigSugar

good god....what drivel.....stow your hatred of Bush in a basket somewhere and wake yourself up....

oh...that's good....dismiss my post as BushHateSpeech and don't address the concern.

The conservative mind is so 2-dimensional..sheesh!

solomon

04 May 2003, 09:13 PM

RichmondVA

04 May 2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana
Bush's speech is not free....it's purchased by big corporations. Furthermore, the right to free speech is a right of the people, NOT corporations!

Look, I hate the way campaigns are run as much as anyone else, and I would change it if I could. But I just can't in good conscience shut out anyone's right to have their message heard.

Free speech is a right to anyone and everyone who chooses to exercise it. It's not just corporations that pay for ads, but also unions, individual voters, and any other political action comittee.

If you and your friends want to air an ad about how evil Bush is, shouldn't you have that right? Donating directly to a candidate is one thing, but airing your opinion to the voting public is another.

tobedawg

05 May 2003, 12:04 AM

What's funny to me is that a lot of the same people who back this campaign finance reform are also people who decry the two-party system and whine about third parties not being heard. This legislation would only further cement the two-party system I think.

In which way? Wouldn't campaign Finance reform help a 3rd /Independant party by giving them a more level playing field?

DudeMan

05 May 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Sovrana
oh...that's good....dismiss my post as BushHateSpeech and don't address the concern.

The conservative mind is so 2-dimensional..sheesh!
Methinks Sovrana doth protest too much.

I suggest you go back and read your post with fresh eyes, Sovrana, for you yourself were dismissing posts out of hand without addressing any of the logic contained within. And nice use of blanket-statement stereotypes about the conservative mind being 2-dimensional. But at least you gave credit for two-dimensions instead of saying one-dimensional, so you showed some restraint there.

Given that I've seen you be much more accepting of opposing viewpoints in other subject areas, and that you are being so wildly inconsistent here with your supposed love of free speech, that leads me to believe that Big Sugar is onto something. You show several symptoms of being a Bush-hater who's more interested in getting in a few kidney punches than being consistent or logical. You remember how ineffective the Clinton-haters were? Well, Bush-haters would best be advised that if they have any chance of winning the next election, they'd better get over the fact that the 2000 election was three years ago, and find a different tack than these lame personal attacks like how 'dumb' he is.

And finally, who do you think it was that signed the campaign finance reform bill that you love so much into law in the first place? It was none other than President Bush. How does that fit into his dizzying web? I wonder whether you will now be against Campaign Finance Reform, now that you realize he's the one who signed it into law.

This and the steel protectionist gambit were not Bush's finest moments as president in my book. But, then again, if this is the worst he does, I can live with it. Two liberated countries, two tax cuts, a transformation of the military, and several good judicial nominees (all in the first term!) more than make up for it.

By the way, did you see that fantastic scene last week where President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier? That was way cool!

BigSugar

05 May 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Sovrana

oh...that's good....dismiss my post as BushHateSpeech and don't address the concern.

The conservative mind is so 2-dimensional..sheesh!

you're post was absolutely nothing but "Bush Bashing". it addressed no concerns of merit other than to blame the current administration for everything except cancer.....i'm sure that one is coming though...

when you address a real issue with real points and concerns, i'll be happy to answer you're questions if i can. until then, keep yelling "Bush Sucks" as loud as you can....it's really working well.

BTW....we do need campaign finance reform....but not at the cost of free speech. and yes, free speech is guaranteed to all people, entities and even corporations....

Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Sovrana: please point to the part above that restricts freedom of speech to individuals only.....

butter_of_69

05 May 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by DudeMan
As long as they don't make false claims & break the commercial code, they are as free to speak out on any particular issue as you or me.

That's an "if" of gigantic proportions.

Sovrana

05 May 2003, 12:20 PM

After re-looking at my initial post with "fresh eyes" I see I say NOTHING about Bush personally. I mentioned that his speeches are mere commodities....bought by big corporations. A few of you have quite simply (2 dimensionally?) categorized this as "Bush Bashing."

BigSugar, your citation of freedoms quitely clearly states the freedoms of the people....perhaps I should ask you to point to where it says big corporations are permitted this right as detailed in your citation....the catch is you have to show this without referring to corporations as people.

Dudeman (and I address you with the greatest restraint) I've determined that you and I simply cannot have a debate about anything. I don't know how you type with your hands in the pants (or up the skirt?!) of the corporate world.

The American people know (though I do not ever expect you to concede to the fact) that the corporate world is corrupt. And there are more proven ties between this administration and Enron than between Saddam and terrorism. And your support of such capitalist endeavors frightens the hell out of me.

I have no problem with capitalism itself...my problem is with people like you who see it and promote it as a method for handling social or civic concerns. Do you not care about people (not corporations) at all??

As for the Campaign Finance Law hurting groups other than big corporations (i.e. unions, non-profits, etc) I think I am willing to risk that for a future of more creative, truer campaigns.

BigSugar

05 May 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana
After re-looking at my initial post with "fresh eyes" I see I say NOTHING about Bush personally.

"Bush's speech is not free....it's purchased by big corporations."

"poisoned by the language used by the current administration. "

You just keep spinning this shit...the White House (with the help of corporate money) has silenced you..."

It's a dizzying web the administration as constructed

every bit of the above quotes are personal attacks based on hatred, not fact. every reference to "the white house" or the "current administration" is a terribly thinly veiled reference to Bush....c'mon, you really can't be that blind!

BigSugar, your citation of freedoms quitely clearly states the freedoms of the people....perhaps I should ask you to point to where it says big corporations are permitted this right as detailed in your citation....the catch is you have to show this without referring to corporations as people.

please, read the first amendment and my post, as neither say what you attribute to them....i'm sure you read the bill of rights once in grade school, but it really is worth a second look.....the fiirst amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech;...", not "People are entitled to..." or "Individuals are entitled to, but corporations are subject to congressional oversight of speech....." the reason it's so dark where you are is b/c you have your head placed squarely in your ass.....please tug gently on your neck and see the wonder that is daylight.

As for the Campaign Finance Law hurting groups other than big corporations (i.e. unions, non-profits, etc) I think I am willing to risk that for a future of more creative, truer campaigns.

and of course, you (or someone you approve of) get to decide which people or entities are entitled to protection of the constitution, and which are not....i totally forgot that part of the Constitution where they espoused the system of checks and balances where they created the Executive, Judicial, Legislative and Sovrana. Thanx for clarifying that.....i feel like such a dummy for not recognizing your Constitutional greatness....let's just go ahead and chop off our nose to spite our face....sounds reasonable Sov, thanx!

dcXhc

05 May 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by BigSugar
please, read the first amendment and my post, as neither say what you attribute to them....

I think you're wasting your breath. Sovrana seems to be working from the assumption that everyone agrees with her that corporations are inherently evil. And if you disagree with her you've either been "poisoned" or are "allowing yourself to be trapped."

Sovrana

05 May 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by BigSugar

"Bush's speech is not free....it's purchased by big corporations."

"poisoned by the language used by the current administration. "

You just keep spinning this shit...the White House (with the help of corporate money) has silenced you..."

It's a dizzying web the administration as constructed

every bit of the above quotes are personal attacks based on hatred, not fact. every reference to "the white house" or the "current administration" is a terribly thinly veiled reference to Bush....c'mon, you really can't be that blind!

I think I see the problem....you and I use and refer to individuals and groups of individuals (i.e. corporations, the White House, etc) differently. To you it's all the same....I make a distinction.

the reason it's so dark where you are is b/c you have your head placed squarely in your ass.....please tug gently on your neck and see the wonder that is daylight.

and this is a PERSONAL attack

and of course, you (or someone you approve of) get to decide which people or entities are entitled to protection of the constitution, and which are not....i totally forgot that part of the Constitution where they espoused the system of checks and balances where they created the Executive, Judicial, Legislative and Sovrana. Thanx for clarifying that.....i feel like such a dummy for not recognizing your Constitutional greatness....let's just go ahead and chop off our nose to spite our face....sounds reasonable Sov, thanx!

and THIS is sarcasm

oh...and dcXhc...I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. In fact, you may be right...I do tend to think the corporate world in inherently corrupt....at least those corporate structures that fund this administration.

Instead of using sarcasm...show me where I am wrong....please...I need something to grasp on to before the next election or I will be ill throughout the campaign....I mean this in all seriousness.

solomon

05 May 2003, 04:18 PM

I think I see the problem....you and I use and refer to individuals and groups of individuals (i.e. corporations, the White House, etc) differently. To you it's all the same....I make a distinction.

There are individuals, and there are groups of...individuals. If you have twelve individuals acting as a group, it's still 12 individuals just acting together voluntarily. A corporation is merely a group of individuals working together, like any other group. So my question is at what point does a group lose its freedom of speech? 5 members? 10? 100?

In fact, you may be right...I do tend to think the corporate world in inherently corrupt....at least those corporate structures that fund this administration.

And what of the political world?? It's FAR more corrupt. The basis of success in politics is basically lying and deceiving well. The basis of success in corporations is profit, which as I've explained, is a signal of benefiting consumers. It amazes me that people seek shelter from the "corrupt" corporations in government!

Solomon

By the way though, I do think that large corporations use government to their advantage, such as protecting them from competition, but this is only natural. It's not something I advocate. I'm against all corporate welfare, industry protection programs, and other things that shield them from market forces. Further evidence that business and government do not go together. But the one that needs to go is government.

DudeMan

05 May 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana

Dudeman (and I address you with the greatest restraint) I've determined that you and I simply cannot have a debate about anything. I don't know how you type with your hands in the pants (or up the skirt?!) of the corporate world.

So... does that mean I should move the vase back to the place on my mantle where I was saving a spot for your Christmas card?

I'd be happy to debate you any time, Sovrana... I'm just waiting for you to express something in this CurEven/Pol forum beyond ranting & polemics, or respond to one of my posts with something besides blanket statements and ad hominems.

BigSugar

05 May 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana
I think I see the problem....you and I use and refer to individuals and groups of individuals (i.e. corporations, the White House, etc) differently. To you it's all the same....I make a distinction.

so when you said "White House", you meant the janitor that cleans the oval office, not the person who currently occupies it, right?? right.

and when you say administration, you're referring to the Deputy Undersecretary of Toe Cheese?? i get it.....you just won't admit that you hate Bush/White House/Administration so much that you can't make a concerted, logical argument to support your unsupportable positions. just say "I misread the constitution and am wrong about the freedom of speech issue", and it's all done....no more posts. that's all.....it's clear as day.

you know what makes me sick in this political season as it gets underway.....all the damn Democrats bashing each other to prove they are more conservative than the next....Leiberman's 180 "return" to conservative values since he rid himself of the "gore baggage" is icky. and Daschle might as well get knee pads so he can suck Bush's d*ck in comfort.....

dcXhc

05 May 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Sovrana
I think I see the problem....you and I use and refer to individuals and groups of individuals (i.e. corporations, the White House, etc) differently. To you it's all the same....I make a distinction.

oh...and dcXhc...I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. In fact, you may be right...I do tend to think the corporate world in inherently corrupt....at least those corporate structures that fund this administration.

Instead of using sarcasm...show me where I am wrong....please...I need something to grasp on to before the next election or I will be ill throughout the campaign....I mean this in all seriousness.

You and I have been down this road before. My sense is that you believe that corporations (as an institution) deceive and manipulate people and that you would like to see the government weaken the corporate world.

I'm starting from the premise that a corporation is just like any other collection of individuals. Why should they not have the same right to lobby government as any other group?

Or, are you saying that all groups should be outlawed? Should all petitions to the government come only from individuals? What if you knew other individuals who would like to see more money dedicated to the arts -- shouldn't you have the right to pool your resources and form a group to lobby for greater funding? Why is this group different from a corporation that wants more funding for roads so that they can put in a new factory in town? Is it just the element of money (the profit motive) that causes you to draw a distinction?

Sovrana

05 May 2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by dcXhc

Is it just the element of money (the profit motive) that causes you to draw a distinction?

Good question. I find myself torn by this as well. But yes....I draw the distinction here, the profit motive. There is no nuance to this...."for profit" is just that, for profit...nothing else. *shrugs*

Phreon

05 May 2003, 08:17 PM

To play Devil's advocate......

There is a difference between an organization like the NRA (where there are voluntary members) and a large corperation.

Where (in theory) the NRA exists solely to represent it's like minded members, a large corperation's primary obligation is to it's shareholders, not it's empolyees. Therefore, a large company would most likely desire political action that would benefit it's shareholders (or bottom line), not it's workers.

Let's face it, how many companies are democratic about their corperate decisions? Maybe employee owned ventures like Harley Davidson are, but largely, most places (well, at least many) are "ruled" by an upper management that tends to do what's best fiscally for itself.

Yes, ideally, what's good for the shareholders is also for the employees of said company and visa versa, but in reality, the little guy tends to get stepped on. Companies can and do champion causes that are not in their employees best interests.

Enron ? Arthur Andersen? Ring a bell? Anyone? Anyone?

More regulation is almost always a Bad Thing (TM), but I'm conflicted about the whole campaign finance issue. How 'bout passing a law saying only registered voters can contribute their personal wealth? Since when could Microsoft vote? Let Bill Gates fund whomever he likes, just not on the company dollar.

Sure, you can argue that an employee is free to leave a company (that's not in line with his/her beliefs) at any time, but in this economy, who's really free to just up and leave? Most people do not take jobs to be represented, they do so out of financial necessity. Perhaps it's fair to say that workers are quasi-captive co-contributors?

See, I'm not just a knee jerk, right-wing, conservative Republican.. I'm all over the damn place!

Phreon