Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
Sept. 7: McCain-Feingold gets new teeth
Say Goodbye to Free Speech. You'll see it again on 11/8
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
You might not have noticed, but your right to participate in this fall's elections just got a heck of a lot smaller. You see, today - September 7th - a ban on independent issue advertising mentioning incumbent Members of Congress goes into effect. It doesn't matter if your ad has anything to do with the election - it doesn't matter if you're working to pass/defeat a significant piece of legislation. (Note: I expect that Congress will move a HECK of a lot more legislative business inside that 60-day window from now on)
Oh - and the FEC had the chance to provide relief for unions, corporations and advocacy groups - and while every Republican on the Commission voted to allow such speech - the Democrats killed it.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | SCOTUS: Victory For Speech? — Comments (12) »
Sept. 7: McCain-Feingold gets new teeth 15 Comments (0 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Oh, there is still a corporate exemption
by LoveThatConstitution
Only it is just for the New York Times corporation, Time Warner corporation, etc...
absolutely disgusting.
A couple of questions.
by whitefang
Does this legistlation cover things like this blog? Is this the first step in shutting down the blogsphere?
Krempasky can give you a much better answer,
by spainishirish
and he has been deeply involved in the issue, but from what I gather the answer is "no," or more precisely, "not yet." The sights have been set on this medium, though.
Smile
by Bob Frazier
This appalling law came under George W. Bush and the Republicans. And you feared what Democrats might do.
The Republicans are in trouble in the fall. Surprised? This is just one big example why.
Well, Not Exactly a total Ban
by mattclimbs
While Mike has the general thrust right, that there is a 60 day limit on electioneering communications (that is teh McCain-Feingold term for these types of ads), they can still be run if they are paid for by a PAC.
The problem with this of course is that most organizations don't have a PAC with enough funds to run TV ads and those that do have such a PAC generally won't spend on this types of ads.
But the limitation on how to pay for the ads is in effect a ban on the advertising--itself a violation of First Amendment rights. Not since the Alien and Sedition Acts has then been a practically outright ban on criticizing the government when the government is doing the people's business.
Matt Johnston
This is why
by SDGOP
ii will NEVER vote for mccain. Don't care if its primary or the general.
Save the planet, Kill yourself
Unconstitutional
by Marcus Traianus
This will be found Unconstitutional and relegated to the dust bin of history.
I am patiently awaiting the first challenge, which should be measured in days.
By the way, isn't it ironic the man who has talked about us having too many First Amendment rights is namely attached to this legislation?
McCain for President indeed. I think he should save his money for something more achievable, like retirement.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Unfortunately, we already lost that fight
by krempasky
McConnell v Fec.
Not the End
by Marcus Traianus
Since the FEC is still making related rulings, I do not believe this is over. Creative challenges still abound as witnessed by Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission (9-0 SCOTUS).
McConnell v FEC is probably one of the most shameful decisions to come from SCOTUS. This whole idea that money is not speech and providing special First Amendment considerations for legislators is despicable. In fact, I think this latter factor creates opportunity for additional consideration.
The Scalia-Thomas dissent is some of their best work and a must read for anyone interested.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
This is staggering
by qlangley
>>You see, today - September 7th - a ban on independent issue advertising mentioning incumbent Members of Congress goes into effect.
Does it really specify incumbents but not candidates? If so then the implications are breathtaking, and I think could not possibly survive a legal challenge.
Let me set out a test case which would surely have to destroy this ruling:
An independent group needs to run an advert criticising two candidates - one incumbent and one not - in exactly the same words. If one of those is illegal and the other not, then I am sure the law itself would be successfully challenged.
Perhaps a good case in point would be to run an advert criticising Sheldon Whitehouse and Lincoln Chafee using exactly the same wording.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Read the opinion cited above:
by spainishirish
McConnell v. FEC, _________, (USSC). I was floored that the USSC reached this decision.
We have a different court now
by Jon Sandor
O'Connor was one of the five who ruled against free speech. Alito will rule differently, which is one of the reasons we are better off with him than with Miers.
True.
by spainishirish
The composition of the Court will be more important than the merits even on something this important. My favorite line from McConnel v. FEC:
The notion that the First Amendment
erects a rigid barrier between express and issue advocacy also
cannot be squared with this Court's longstanding recognition that the
presence or absence of magic words cannot meaningfully distinguish
electioneering speech from a true issue ad.
Total nonsense, of course, but chilling still.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Not everyone who thinks
by yolepierdomiamorPulling a Kowalski...
by aceintxI can see a whole line of these nt
by dglennP.S. here is what we are exporting
by JoliphantCED was just strange
by JoliphantThank You so much! I want
by dld1717If true, that would be a serious heresy
by civil truth& the Cries of Unity
by Whitehorse5*5*5*5*5*5*5 nt
by aceintxAs a Southern Baptist, the
by Kev85Come to think of it,
by jonlesterWe need a new Jesse Helms.
by NobamaMany of whom are Russian <nt>
by jonlesterI remember Bob Dole saying
by jonlesterWho would vote for
by mbecker908
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
Of all the black marks against Bush, his signature on this legislation wins hands down. Fortunately, it bears the names of those directly responsible and both want to be the president who follows him.