McCain Feingold crippled

zukiphile said:
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.
Click to expand...
Certainly not using the logic of United.
Tom Servo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I really hope he does try that. This time around, I doubt it would work and it would seal his fate (and any democrats that were with him), as far as the next election goes. Jimmy Carter, meet Barack Obama!

When the left throws tantrums about this decision, it just affirms that the decision was the right one.
LukeA said:
I think this ruling strikes a tremendous blow to the last vestiges of the ideals upon which this nation was founded.
Click to expand...
How so? Since when does increasing freedom lesson the ideals of liberty?
 
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.
Click to expand...

It is to prevent the Government from abridging speech. It has nothing to do with individuals outspeaking others whether by volume, decibels or content.
 
ADB said:
Blankly opening up the doors of campaign finance is tantamount to saying that the wealthiest voice deserves to be loudest.
Click to expand...

On this I must politely disagree.

Using this singular example, it might appear like the "robber barons" will buy out the government. I feel the reverse condition is far worse.

Frankly, having a disposable income is vilified to advance a more socialist agenda. The "rich" are accused of securing better healthcare, so socialist medicine must become the norm for fairness.

Well, if I'm in a place to buy a commodity, it's my right to choose to purchase better insurance, and not a HDTV or a new Escalade. That's a free choice, I vote with my wallet.

And in the final analysis, I believe 'envy' is at the core. You have to get up everyday and work for most wealth, unless you get fired by NBC, and lots of people would rather complain than set the alarm clock.
 
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...

Agreed. I was hoping for Sotomayor to be a little different but, my guess is, I'm totally wrong.

ETA: My view on McCain/Feingold boils down to this:

Whenever you single out a certain group, and limit their free speech, you are giving groups without such limitations undue influence on the outcome of an election IMHO.

For example, McCain/Feingold exempted media corporations from its limitations. Media corporations are some of the wealthiest and most powerful entities in existence. They gained a HUGE advantage when other, ordinary, corporations/groups were limited in their free speech. (I wonder how the left would have taken McCain/Feingold had the same limitations existed for media corporations?)

It's almost akin to a "T" account in accounting for me. Whenever you limit free speech for one group, you throw the "T" account out of balance (i.e., debits must equal credits). That is unfair and unconstitutional IMHO.

Unless, as Justice Kennedy stated, there is some substantial, realistic government reason for limiting free speech. Clearly, IMHO, there is no substantial justification for this 30 day prohibition on certain groups.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Would there be a conflict of interest for a corporation like say...GM or Chrysler to swiftboat for the candidate of choice?
 
A couple minor points:

McCain Fiengold exempted media corporations from the law. In the last election, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN The new york times Newscorp Gannett/ USA Today all shamelessly cheer led for Barrack Obama or Hillary in the primary, and took every opportunity to make John McCain look bad or present him in a negative light. No other type of corporation could ever even begin to compete with a single media conglomerate, no matter how many issue ads or endorsements they paid for. The other night I watched Nightline on ABC give Barrack Obama one half hour of uninterrupted unquestioned airtime hosted by George Stephanopolis to toot his own horn and Blame Bush for all our problems, as though he had not even been in office for the last year, not one difficult question was asked.:mad:

Mccain finegold was unconstitutional period. It stopped the little guy who only has $40 from having his voice collectively represented by the likes of the League of Women Voters, The AARP, The NRA, and other Corporate organizations like unions around election time. It did not stop the wealthy from establishing their own offshore non corporations, like Move-on.org to promote their views.

It did not stop the employees of Goldman Sachs from giving Barrak Obama $4 million collectively for his campaign.

AT least now my views via the NRA, and the AFL-CIO / public employees union can be heard as well as those of George Soros, Gannett, and Rupert Murdoch.

EVERYONE has a human brain and can use it to fact check the messages they hear.
 
My one comment is that the decision by the Supreme Court sets the NRA free to be more active in letting the public know about candidates. And, I seem to remember certain Senators, like Feinstein and Schumer saying that McCain-Feingold would "pull the teeth of the NRA" or someting like that. So, that issue is certainly related to the fight to retain our gun rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top