McCain Feingold crippled

Z

zukiphile

New member
While we often discuss the fine points of 2d Am. advocacy, one of the very general impediments to it was McCain Feingold which prohibited certain 3d party communications within close proximity to an election. Plainly, if the NRA has its speech restricted leading up to an election, the effect of your support is somewhat muted.

The SCOTUS has stricken the 3d party speech prohibitions in this opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

I once thought that mandating disclosure of donors was a good idea, but Thomas makes a powerful argument against it.
 
This is bad, in my opinion. Blankly opening up the doors of campaign finance is tantamount to saying that the wealthiest voice deserves to be loudest. To put it in terms everyone here would appreciate, what happens if Mike Bloomberg decides he wants to spend $10 million on anti-gun ads?
 
Then the NRA can match it, ADB.

Bloomberg won't do that though, because all it does is net him negative publicity with gun owners.

America supports guns. Anti-gun bias angers people and creates distrust towards the origin. Not jut for TFL members, but even for casual shooters or those on the fence. They can see through this stuff.
 
This is bad, in my opinion. Blankly opening up the doors of campaign finance is tantamount to saying that the wealthiest voice deserves to be loudest. To put it in terms everyone here would appreciate, what happens if Mike Bloomberg decides he wants to spend $10 million on anti-gun ads?
Click to expand...

Mike Bloomberg already could afford to do that under the law prior to this ruling. In fact, it was easier for him to do it than it was for the NRA to do it; because corporations could only speak out through PACs, which had tremendously burdensome reporting requirements for every donation and expenditure.

So if you are a fabulously wealthy billionaire funding your own PAC, the reporting requirements aren't that bad - you are the only donor. If you are the NRA funding your own PAC from 4,000,000 $30 donations, they get pretty tedious and expensive quickly.

This is a tremendous step forward, not just for the NRA (who was explicitly named as one of the targets of McCain-Feingold); but for everyone who wants to put their $.02 together with like-minded people and hope to have some of the same influence that guys like Bloomberg, Soros, etc. have.
 
what happens if Mike Bloomberg decides he wants to spend $10 million on anti-gun ads?
Click to expand...

From what I understand Mike Bloomberg could spend all the money he wants on campaign ads even before the decision today since he wasn't prohibited as an individual from doing so. The decision cuts both ways since anti gun advocacy groups as well as the NRA can now spend money on campaigns right up until the election. The same cuts both ways for Unions and Corporations. Since I'm not a billionaire and depend on advocacy groups like the NRA to speak for me I think it levels the playing field.
 
Last edited:
Yep,
We are just going to have to vote in politicians with greater honesty and integrity. Lots of luck on that one !!! ... :eek:


Be Safe !!!
 
FWIW, I think it was a great ruling. A person, corporation or organization should not be stifled in their free speech. Period!!

McCain/Feingold was one of the most draconian free speech violations I have ever seen in my life. And I ain't young.
 
McCain Feingold didn't really cripple the ability of wealthy individuals to spend their own money advocating for candidates.

What it essentially did was cripple the ability of non wealthy individuals to organize and pool their money for greater effect. I know I have no ability to effectively advocate for my beliefs because I don't have the resources. But everyone gives a little and pretty soon we have enough to effectively advocate.

I agree with this decision. Groups on both sides of the spectrum should be allowed to advocate their causes.
 
It isn't a short read. I've only had a chance to scan parts of it.

If you are a fan of the writing of Scalia and his clerks, you will enjoy:

Scalia said:
Of course the Framers’ personal affection or disaffection for corporationsis relevant only insofar as it can be thought to be reflected in the understood meaning of the text they enacted—not, as the dissent suggests, as a freestanding substitute for that text. But the dissent’s distortion of proper analysis iseven worse than that. Though faced with a constitutionaltext that makes no distinction between types of speakers, the dissent feels no necessity to provide even an isolatedstatement from the founding era to the effect that corporations are not covered, but places the burden on petitionersto bring forward statements showing that they are (“thereis not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone believed [the First Amendment] would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the corporate form,” post,at 34–35).

Despite the corporation-hating quotations the dissent has dredged up, it is far from clear that by the end of the 18th century corporations were despised. If so, how came there to be so many of them?
Click to expand...

The opportunity to write that had to be a reward for other less fun work on other cases.
 
The decision itself, is a breath of fresh air. I never did agree with McCain-Feingold. I always thought it was a crock, that Congress would actually stifle political speech and get away with it (McConnell).

Stare Decisis: - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts. It is essentially, the practice of not reinventing the wheel.

Did anyone else notice the amount of writing used to explain why they were overturning prior precedent? C.J. Roberts opinion was almost entirely devoted to that issue alone. Justice Stevens dissenting opinion used much space explaining why they shouldn't, not so much why the prior decisions were good law.

I don't know how others might look at this, but I find that the battle lines over McDonald to be fully drawn.
 
Did anyone else notice the amount of writing used to explain why they were overturning prior precedent?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I find this argument supported by any coherent principle only to a very limited degree.

I don't think Stevens can square his position on stare decisis in this case with his vote in Lawrence v. Texas which plainly reversed Hardwick. Roberts was asked his position on stare decisis in his confirmation hearings, and he grasped for a nebulous standard that would afford weight to past precedent without a full endorsement of stare decisis. I think Bork's position as stated in his hearings made more sense: an adherence to stare decisis for a court the recurring issue for which is "Is this constitutional?" doesn't really make sense. If new ideas about how we read the document arise, then we will not be bound by the precedent of, say, Dred Scott.

Roberts and Stevens are both brilliant men, but I see little real point in pretending the court will be bound by any precedent it does not prefer.
 
I don't know how others might look at this, but I find that the battle lines over McDonald to be fully drawn.
Click to expand...

Yes, I haven't had time to read Citizens United yet; but when the summaries I read indicated how much time was spent explaining stare decisis, I thought "You'll be seeing that cited again."

I need to read at least that portion just so I can see how well Cruikshank and Presser square up with the various Justices take on stare decisis.
 
From what I understand Mike Bloomberg could spend all the money he wants on campaign ads even before the decision today since he wasn't prohibited as an individual from doing so.
Click to expand...

Ads for himself, yes. This allows for unrestricted spending by any group for any campaign. It basically means that if you've got rich and powerful friends, say Wall Street bankers, you can buy any election by going around the law. This isn't remotely "free speech." It's sale of the government to the highest bidder.
 
This allows for unrestricted spending by any group for any campaign. It basically means that if you've got rich and powerful friends, say Wall Street bankers, you can buy any election by going around the law. This isn't remotely "free speech." It's sale of the government to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...



Letting people have economically valuable media access in the same way they might choose to spend on any other good seems to honor each individual's choices the most and lead to the most free, i.e. least restricted, exchange.

Let's say this fellow with wealthy friends spent a fortune on an election and won. Would you want your ability to contribute to unseating him to be limited by the government of which he is now a part?
 
Ads for himself, yes. This allows for unrestricted spending by any group for any campaign. It basically means that if you've got rich and powerful friends, say Wall Street bankers, you can buy any election by going around the law. This isn't remotely "free speech." It's sale of the government to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

I guess I missed the part where the First Amendment doesn't apply once you have a certain amount of money? The problem with this legislation (as I pointed out earlier) is that it actually solidifies the power of the wealthy. If you have only one donor, it is easier to do the reporting requirements and the wealthy can already afford to form the PACs necessary to evade the restrictions corporations face.

On the flip side, if you are a group of individuals (NRA, for example), your political power is muted. You can no longer speak within 60-days of an election. You have to report every donation from your 4,000,000 members that was used to fund your speech. Hope you don't misfile one of those reports and make yourself a felon in the process of doing 4,000,000 reports a year.

The case involved was a non-profit corporation (as many political lobbying groups, including the NRA, Sierra Club, etc. are) who funded and made a documentary film attacking Hillary Clinton. Because they accepted some corporation contributions in their funding (as well as many individual contributions) - a movie about political candidates was censored by our government and prevented from airing.

How could you possibly equate this outcome with free speech and not want it overturned?

And that doesn't even get into the bizarre outcomes of this law - ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox News are all corporations; yet all of them got a blanket exception from this law. Wonder if that amplifies their already disconcerting power to shape politics? So what would have happened if AFL-CIO started their own network? Or the NRA (who did exactly that)? Are they exempted media organizations or corporations exploiting a "free speech" loophole?
 
I haven't read the opinion yet but I have always believed McCain-Feingold to be unconstitutional. Most fundamentally, corporations are associations of people. The freedom of association is a part of the First Amendment's right to assemble. Denying the right of speech to a group of people associated to engage in free speech is thus doubly repugnant.

The ability to marshal money and expend it for printing costs, air time, and other modes of speech is inextricably bound to the right of speech itself. I can go downtown and advocate for or against a particular candidate on the courthouse lawn. Only a minuscule portion of the population will ever be able to hear me. The decision by the Supreme Court gives at least some opportunity for associations of individuals to be heard.
 
Did anyone else notice the amount of writing used to explain why they were overturning prior precedent?
Click to expand...
Yeppers. I think we know who voted to hear McDonald :)

At the same time, stare decisis is neither an “inexorable command,” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003), nor “a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision,” Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119 (1940), especially in constitutional cases, see United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 101 (1978). If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.
Click to expand...

A lot of strong wording from him and Scalia on the issue.

The President made a very unfortunate statement in response to this, saying he was going to "get to work immediately with Congress" to come up with a "forceful response." That one sounds very familiar.

Is it 1937 all over again?

What this will do is change the balance of power towards the middle. Traditionally, corporations have only gone to the trouble of forming and funding PAC's when focused on specific, highly partisan issues. As such, candidates from the far right or far left have benefited.

Now that it's easier to advertise for a candidate, we're likely to see a groundswell of support for moderate republicans and conservative democrats.

As mentioned, it also gives the NRA, GOA, SAF and other 2A advocacy groups more latitude.

I've no doubt there will be all sorts of "watchdog" and whistleblower groups on both sides of the fence to keep things in balance. Of course, the MSM is screaming "judicial activism" over the whole thing.
 
I've always understood the First Amendment to, in a narrow interpretation, prevent the incarceration of citizens for political speech, but, in a broad interpretation, to prevent the suppression of the quiet voices by the large, whether through threat of violence or through purchasing power.

I think this ruling strikes a tremendous blow to the last vestiges of the ideals upon which this nation was founded.*


*don't get all cynical and say those ideals are already gone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top