Is the USSC trying to foment revolution?

[tyme]

Interestingly, it seems this decision is the longest in Supreme Court history (with all the various dissenting opinions and syllabus and ...). I'd imagine there are many quotes on the subject that writing convincing lies takes more words than writing truths.

"This set of opinions, which is 298 pages including the syllabus, is longer than Furman (232), longer than Buckley (293), longer than Dred Scott (234). There is a telephone patent case in 1887 that occupies all 577 pages of 126 US, but most of that is the report by the Reporter of Decisions of the oral and written arguments of the various parties, details of the patent applications, etc.as was the custom at the time; the opinion itself is only 46 pages." --Stephen Wermiel, American.edu WCL

 

[Sam Adams]

What we have all witnessed this date in history, December 10, 2003, is the prior restraint of free political speech in America.

This cannot be repeated enough. The most basic of freedoms, the right to criticize our politicians, died this morning. 5 members of the SCOTUS, charged with protecting the Constitution, aided and abetted the enemies of Liberty. They should be impeached, but I think it more likely that I will win the lottery in 10 states on the same evening with the same numbers than that the same Senators that voted for this POS law would even give a second thought to impeachment, let alone carry it through.

 

[Ed N.]

Sam wrote:

"5 members of the SCOTUS, charged with protecting the Constitution, aided and abetted the enemies of Liberty. They should be impeached,..."

=================================


Why just the Supremes? Why not the legislators who created this damn law? Why not the president who signed it?

This isn't just a supreme court problem. Folks, ALL THREE branches of the federal gov't are equally responsible for this travesty.

Even if you DID find a way to impeach and remove all 5 judges, the law would still be in place and would still be enforced.

The only branch you can directly effect and which can directly change the law is the legislature. And since most of the public seems to approve of this law, you don't have much chance of changing the legislature by any means, at least not quickly. And since the law left the media alone, the media doesn't give a damn that we're losing our freedom, and therefore you don't have much chance of changing public opinion.

I see no solution, at least in the short run, for gaining fair access to the media (i.e., commercials).

Therefore we need to use (and expand!) other means of communication.

 

[alan]

With regard to what some have warned against, on various forums, that is the posting of "hostile" thoughts, the following comes to mind. So far as I'm concerned, readers, whomever they might be, can take it as they like.

1. In my view, re their ruling in this Campaign Finance Reform Law case, so called, otherwise known as the Incumbent Protection Act, The USSC have acted to strangle lawful discourse.

2. The shutting off of lawfull discourse does not eliminate said discourse, though it might well change it, in a manner best described as undesirable, for the discourse, and the way it might then be expressed, is likely to be a whole lot ouuder, not to mention dangerous and perhaps illegal or unlawful in the form of expression forced upon it. In any case, the USSC, having spoken, might now perhaps, at it's leisure, repent, as the old saying goes. Unfortunately, their repenting might well turn out to be, as another old saying offers, "A day late and a dollar short".

 

[Jonesy9]

unfortuanately, the majority of Americans support the CFR to get money out of poltics. too bad it's like banning plastic guns. the money will just flow through new rivers.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Jonesy9 has it right. The law forbids independent groups from running ads 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.

So, the candidate meets with the independent groups and they agree that it will be the independents who run the majority of the ads right up until August or so. The candidate's committee saves most of their money for the pre-primary and pre-general periods.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm getting sick of this. Courts that fail to strike down laws you don't like are called treasonous. Courts that strike down laws you like are called treasonous.

Has it ever crossed your mind that people who disagree with your view of the Constitution are not traitors, but merely people who disagree?

Campaign finance reform brings up some of the most complex aspects of the First Amendment's jurisprudence. There are strong intretests competing with each other. The need for free and fair elections vs. the freedom for individuals to have their say. Do I know where that line should be drawn? No. Do I agree with this decision? For the most part, no. But is it treasonous, is it the end of liberty? Hardly.

 

[Bob Locke]

But is it treasonous, is it the end of liberty? Hardly.

Then what rises to that level, in your opinion?

What if the Congress passes a bill that states the private ownership of firearms is illegal and that all privately-held weapons are to be turned in within 60 days, the president signed it into law, and the SCOTUS backed it with a favorable decision?

That would only be a chink in the armor of liberty, right?

How many dents can a piece of armor take before it loses its integrity?

 

[tyme]

Cosmoline, elections weren't "fair and free" before this decision or Buckley? Gosh, I don't recall it ever being legal to threaten voters who vote their conscience. Not like it was in Iraq.

As long as people are free to vote their conscience at the voting booth, any restrictions on political donations, advertising, etc. are patently unconstitutional. I haven't seen a political ad yet that's changed how I've voted in an election. I've certainly never voted for any candidates based on their campaign war chests. If other people do, that's a failure of the democratic process, not "corruption" caused by large donations or by mention of candidates' names in ads.

 

[longeyes]

One man/one vote is the great equalizer.

But "taking the money out of politics" is a misguided ideal. Money represents labor, capital, and achievement; it is the language of our economic principles. Money is not a dirty word. People who have a stake in society by means of their accumulated wealth are entitled to express their political views, whether individually or in concert. This represents a counterweight to the leveling momentum we have been seeing, which equates the vote of someone who never paid into the system with someone who keeps this society afloat.

 

[Bob Locke]

Still bothered...

The three branches of government, acting jointly, have undermined one of the fundamental rights of the citizenry. The fact that very few people in this country are going to even notice is even more cause for alarm than the fact that it happened.

 

[ctdonath]

Has it ever crossed your mind that people who disagree with your view of the Constitution are not traitors, but merely people who disagree?

Depends on what we're disagreeing about.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".

Congress, POTUS, and SCOTUS said "Congress may abridge the freedom of speech or of the press, especially as stated in this 700-page law and justified in this 300-page ruling."

The Bill of Rights tells our government what it cannot do - in this case, in very plain language.
Our government just told the Bill of Rights that it can do whatever it wants - in this case, in very heavy (legally and physically) language.

"shall make no law" just got blown away.
"shall not be infringed" was flatly ignored a couple weeks ago.
If those fall so easily, the rest of the Constitution cannot stand.

This is not mere disagreement.
This is the destruction of the foundation of our government.

Now please explain how those who flush the Constitution in such a manner are not "traitors".

 

[tyme]

Oh, most people noticed, I'm sure. They just didn't notice it properly. I bet most news stations dealt with it thusly (I don't watch any of them so I'll have to guess...):

"Also, today, the Supreme Court released an opinion upholding the major provisions of the Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform Bill, which places additional restrictions on campaign contributions by wealthy donors and restricts ads mentioning candidates by name within 60 days of an election."

Then, Joe Doe goes and grabs another beer and waits for coverage of the local double-homicide that will no doubt receive 10 minutes of coverage. The news doesn't treat this stuff seriously. How is the average citizen supposed to know?

 

[Langenator]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." seems pretty dang simple to me. And if expressing my opinion about Candidate X, whether it be on TV, radio, or in an ad in a newspaper or magazine, isn't speech, I'm really clueless about what is. The truly galling fact about this law is that, in the Framers' eyes, and in pretty much every SCOTUS decision up to this point, political speech was the most holy and protected form of speech. Now, apparently, the government can't stop me from burning the flag or publishing smut, but it can stop me from buying ads saying that Candidate X is a clueless ninny.

As I understand it, even individual citizens can't buy ads. That means that even if Bill Gates were to convert all of his MS stock into cash, he could not buy a single minute of airtime or a single column inch of print to express his opinion of Candidate X, within the specified time frame. Unless, of course, he buys some sort of media outlet-TV/radio station, newpaper, magazine, whatever, at which point his expression of opinion becomes 'editorializing.'

This decision basically invalidates Buckley v. Valeo. Buckley said that money was speech, and was, as such, protected. McConnell v FEC says that if you pay for it, it's not protected, at least not within the time frame specified.

From a purely practical and short-term view, this basically sinks that big liberal ueber-group/fund, America Coming Together, started by Soros, et al.

I wonder what kinds of things might fall outside this law...web pop-up ads? Spam email? Might this signal the resurgence of the telemarketing industry?

 

[Cosmoline]

Obviously, if Congress passed a law banning all firearms I'd be pretty upset. But frankly a ban on soft money--the single most significant factor in enforcing divisive faction in this nation--doesn't get me as excited. I detest political parties and I frankly think they should be banned from any involvement in elections.

No right is absolute. Free speech has always been subject to limitation. The question is whether this limitation on this kind of "money speech" (a questionable notion to begin with) is Constitutional.

Let me ask you this. Who says money is speech? Is that in the Constitution?

 

[ctdonath]

That means that even if Bill Gates were to convert all of his MS stock into cash, he could not buy a single minute of airtime or a single column inch of print to express his opinion of Candidate X, within the specified time frame.

Most people don't realize you don't have to be Bill Gates to personally buy airtime. My local cable TV channel will sell you ad space for as little as $30.

Sure, running a 30-second ad during the Super Bowl might cost a couple million $$$, but most TV ad time is far cheaper, and some costs less than dinner out.

Unfortunately, Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS is worried that me running a $30 "Anybody but Hillary" ad might constitute "corruption", so I can't run it within 2 months of an election - I can't even have it verified as "non-corrupt" or otherwise "allowed". I'm not talking Bill Gates here, I'm talking me spending "dinner and a movie" money.

 

[ctdonath]

Who says money is speech?

Any speech more broadly delivered than yelling on a streetcorner costs money. You can't financially afford to personally ask 10,000,000 voters to vote for you.

Heck, you're spending money just to ask "Who says money is speech?" - you (or your boss or your mother) had to pay your ISP bill just so you could access thehighroad.com and make your post.

Using a press (remember: "freedom of speech, or the press") costs money. Back then (as now) it cost for ink and paper. Today the electronic press needs money to buy enough electrons.

Talking to a lot of people costs money. Forbid the money, and you reduce the speaker to yelling on a streetcorner - fat lot of good that does in an election with tens of millions of voters.

 

[ctdonath]

if Congress passed a law banning all firearms I'd be pretty upset.

How about if Congress passed a law banning non-police/military firearms possession within 60 days of an election? (Don't worry, you can go pick yours up at the local station after the blackout period.) Remember, it's in the national interest to ensure there is no corruption (via intimidation or worse) in elections.

 

[Dorrin79]

Let me ask you this. Who says money is speech? Is that in the Constitution?

Cosmoline - no. Actually, the money restrictions are arguably Constitutional. I think they're bad law, obviously, but it's not unreasonable to say from a legal perspective that they are not violations of the 1st Amendment.

But as to the other part, the advertisement restraint, are you being deliberately obtuse? The law now states you cannot use your own money to run an advertisement commenting on a political candidate within 60 days of an election.

Money may not be speech. Speech is speech, though, and their ruling violates the most obvious, plain meaning of the 1st amendment.

I'm not sure how you fail to see that.

 

[ctdonath]

Another word on ad rates: on this cable network, $200/month will get you ad time as low as $2.50 per 30 seconds (depending on time of day).

But you can't use it to name a candidate within 60 days of an election. You just can't, says our government.

 

[ctdonath]

Dorrin79 makes an obvious yet easily missed point: even if the ad time were free you couldn't use it to say "vote for Bush" or "anyone but Hillary" within 60 days of an election.

This IS a free-speech issue. Money is just whether the station owner chooses to charge you for the goods/services used in the process.

 

[Cosmoline]

The Constitution says nothing about TV stations. And nobody is keeping the party hacks from going down to the streetcorner. In fact I wish they would! As it stands, they'll still be able to bark at us as long as they don't name a candidate. I don't see this as a major limitation on their right to free speech. Frankly all the bitching reminds me of some Sillywood leftist complaining because nobody will air his left wing views on broadcast media. There is no Constitutional right to free access to TV, radio or movies.

And you're still free to go down and bark on the street corner.

 

[ctdonath]

The Constitution says nothing about TV stations.

Doesn't explicitly say anything about firearms either.

 

[Bob Locke]

The Constitution says nothing about TV stations.

It also says nothing about semi-automatic firearms. Be careful how you parse an argument. You sure you want to go down that road?

Let me ask you this. Who says money is speech? Is that in the Constitution?

Money isn't speech. But if you take away a person's (or a group of people's) ability to purchase air time or print space from a willing provider, then you have acted to limit the speech that would follow.

Money also isn't a firearm. How would you feel about the government issuing you the firearm of its choice, but you have to give up what you've already got and you cannot buy any replacements? After all, the Constitution says we can "keep and bear arms", it doesn't say we have the right to buy them for ourselves.

Money is the means to an end, just like it is in every other situation in life.

No right is absolute. Free speech has always been subject to limitation.

Yes, but if you'll look at the manner in which speech is curtailed (slander, libel, incitement to riot, etc.) they involve one person using his or her free speech rights to directly infringe the rights of another person. If I desire to take out a piece of advertising advocating my personal point of view on a position or a candidate, I am in no way abriding the rights of another person.

That should always be the determining line: Am I using my rights to infringe upon the rights of someone else? If I am not, then there should be no law stopping me.

 

[voilsb]

So what if you didn't name a candidate? What if you said "The opposition says blah blah blah, and it's incorrect based on this data. Vote XYZ Party this election!"

No candidates got named. Would that still work?