Victory For Free Speech!

[5stringJeff]

McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform" limited by SCOTUS!!!!!!!!



-----------------
Justices Loosens Limits on Campaign Ads
By JIM KUHNHENN 06.25.07, 6:45 PM ET

Free speech rights take precedence over government restrictions on political advertising, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a decision that opens the door for greater influence by interest groups in the closing days of an election.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court eased legal barriers aimed at corporate- and union-financed television ads, a decision whose tone suggests greater hostility on the court to federal limitations on money in politics.

The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that a Wisconsin anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3855646.html

[Hagbard Celine]

What this will do is open the door for corporations/lobbyists to have even more control over leadership in this country. What the courts have effectively done is open the door for corporate donations money to be channeled through "interest groups." This will also lead to more "swiftboat" ads, confusion about candidates, etc. Basically, our votes count for jack sh*t now because the winning candidate will just be whichever candidate is most pro-corporate interests. Whoever has the highest bidders behind him/her.

[darin]

*cough*fascists hate free speech too*cough*

[Hagbard Celine]

*cough*fascists hate free speech too*cough*

Hey, if you enjoy having corporate bigwigs spoonfeed you reality and make all your important decisons for you, then by all means stay on your current track.

[Hugh Lincoln]

What this will do is open the door for corporations/lobbyists to have even more control over leadership in this country. What the courts have effectively done is open the door for corporate donations money to be channeled through "interest groups." This will also lead to more "swiftboat" ads, confusion about candidates, etc. Basically, our votes count for jack sh*t now because the winning candidate will just be whichever candidate is most pro-corporate interests. Whoever has the highest bidders behind him/her.

So who should have the right to speak, and who shouldn't?

[nevadamedic]

So who should have the right to speak, and who shouldn't?

Everyone should have the right to free speech!

[CockySOB]

I was happy to see that portion of McCain-Feingold ruled as un-Constitutional, although I wish the other Justices would have gone ahead and looked at the entire BCRA overturned as a violation of the First Amendment.

[Gunny]

What this will do is open the door for corporations/lobbyists to have even more control over leadership in this country. What the courts have effectively done is open the door for corporate donations money to be channeled through "interest groups." This will also lead to more "swiftboat" ads, confusion about candidates, etc. Basically, our votes count for jack sh*t now because the winning candidate will just be whichever candidate is most pro-corporate interests. Whoever has the highest bidders behind him/her.

I knew if I waited enough YEARS you'd say something I agreed with.

[Gunny]

Everyone should have the right to free speech!

Profound.

[nevadamedic]

Profound.

Huh?

[glockmail]

Hey, if you enjoy having corporate bigwigs spoonfeed you reality and make all your important decisons for you, then by all means stay on your current track.

The Mike Moore / Steve Spielberg/ Barbara Steisand corporation can spoon-feed me their version of reality all they want. They can't make my mouth open, nor can they make me swallow. My mind, and my vote, is entirely up to me.

[glockmail]

Huh?

Even more so.

[Hagbard Celine]

....My mind, and my vote, is entirely up to me.

The problem is that regular people from among the people can no longer run for public office and win. Nobody has the kind of money it takes to do that without corporate backing through special interest groups. What we get at the end of it all is the proverbial decision between a giant douche and a sh*t sandwich. Should I vote for the puppet of big oil/corporate America, or should I vote for the puppet of Hollywood/corporate America? Our system is degenerated and we need a reorganization/reprioritization. We've allowed corporate entities to gain too much power and take too much power away from the individual.

[glockmail]

The problem is that regular people from among the people can no longer run for public office and win. Nobody has the kind of money it takes to do that without corporate backing through special interest groups. What we get at the end of it all is the proverbial decision between a giant douche and a sh*t sandwich. Should I vote for the puppet of big oil/corporate America, or should I vote for the puppet of Hollywood/corporate America? Our system is degenerated and we need a reorganization/reprioritization. We've allowed corporate entities to gain too much power and take too much power away from the individual.

Well it is certaintly true that it takes a lot of cash to run for office, and corporations/ organizations can come up with that cash, regardless of the spending limits that they always seem to be able to get around. But the fact of the matter is these entities can't vote. Plus, with the internet and 24 hour cable news cycle these days, anyone with enough sass and imagination can make a splash, open a web site and start collecting contributions.

A perfect example is Fred Thompson. He's raising something like 10G/ minute and he hasn't even announced yet. All he has to do is smile/ wink and the cash flows in- from individuals.

Related to your issue stated is the assumption by many that "there is too much money in politics". During the last Prez election cycle I did a quick calculation based on the reported total amount spent by the candiates, divided by the population of the US. As I recall it was one billion/ 300 million, which is less than one meal at McD's. When looked at in this perspective it is more reasonable to state that politics is a bargain.

[Hagbard Celine]

Well it is certaintly true that it takes a lot of cash to run for office, and corporations/ organizations can come up with that cash, regardless of the spending limits that they always seem to be able to get around. But the fact of the matter is these entities can't vote. Plus, with the internet and 24 hour cable news cycle these days, anyone with enough sass and imagination can make a splash, open a web site and start collecting contributions.

A perfect example is Fred Thompson. He's raising something like 10G/ minute and he hasn't even announced yet. All he has to do is smile/ wink and the cash flows in- from individuals.

Related to your issue stated is the assumption by many that "there is too much money in politics". During the last Prez election cycle I did a quick calculation based on the reported total amount spent by the candiates, divided by the population of the US. As I recall it was one billion/ 300 million, which is less than one meal at McD's. When looked at in this perspective it is more reasonable to state that politics is a bargain.

That's a good perspective. Thanks.