onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
In a 5-4, what else, decision the US Supreme Court upheld the most controversial aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. In a law theoretically intended to deter corruption through political contribution, some are seeing a major curtailment of freedom of speach. Interestingly enough both supporters and opponents of the law run the political gamut from the extreme right to the extreme left.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties.
Those donations, called "soft money," had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads.
Congress may regulate campaign money to prevent the real or perceived corruption of political candidates, a 5-4 majority of the court ruled. That goal and most of the rules Congress drafted to meet it outweigh limitations on the free speech of candidates and others in politics, the majority said.
At the same time, the court acknowledged the 2002 law will not stop the flow of money in politics.
"We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day," Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority.
The law hasn't stopped the flow of big money, but it has changed its course.
In the months since the law took effect, several partisan interest groups have popped up to collect corporate, union and unlimited individual donations to try to influence next year's elections, including several on the Democratic side focused on the presidential race.
Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals capitalized on a loophole in the existing, Watergate-era campaign money system.
The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.
The so-called "soft money" is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps on the amount individuals may give and which is outside the old law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign donations. Supporters of the new law, called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, said that in practice, soft money was funneled to influence specific races for the House, Senate or the White House, and that donors, parties and candidates all knew it.
Although the reform effort was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, many politicians and others in the business of politics were leery of it. The law is often known as "McCain-Feingold".
The new rules have been in force during the early stages of preparation for the 2004 elections for president and Congress. The high court ruling means those rules remain largely untouched as the political seasons heats up. The first delegate-selection contests are just weeks away, in January.
The court has given government an extensive role in the area on grounds that there is a fundamental national interest in rooting out corruption or even the appearance of it. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech, the court has said.
Soft money is just money which has not come in a small contribution. As the article says, money will find a way. In essence I think the whole thing is somewhat pointless, though a good airing will not hurt.
My concern is in the parts that effect free speach (bold) that this law has, and especially the reasoning for the limitation. In effect it will be difficult to respond to an attack under the law, since there are prohibitions on advertizing during the last weeks before an election. That the Court felt that Congress should have regulatory power in the area of political speech is shocking.
J
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties.
Those donations, called "soft money," had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads.
Congress may regulate campaign money to prevent the real or perceived corruption of political candidates, a 5-4 majority of the court ruled. That goal and most of the rules Congress drafted to meet it outweigh limitations on the free speech of candidates and others in politics, the majority said.
At the same time, the court acknowledged the 2002 law will not stop the flow of money in politics.
"We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day," Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority.
The law hasn't stopped the flow of big money, but it has changed its course.
In the months since the law took effect, several partisan interest groups have popped up to collect corporate, union and unlimited individual donations to try to influence next year's elections, including several on the Democratic side focused on the presidential race.
Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals capitalized on a loophole in the existing, Watergate-era campaign money system.
The court also upheld restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates.
The so-called "soft money" is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps on the amount individuals may give and which is outside the old law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign donations. Supporters of the new law, called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, said that in practice, soft money was funneled to influence specific races for the House, Senate or the White House, and that donors, parties and candidates all knew it.
Although the reform effort was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush, many politicians and others in the business of politics were leery of it. The law is often known as "McCain-Feingold".
The new rules have been in force during the early stages of preparation for the 2004 elections for president and Congress. The high court ruling means those rules remain largely untouched as the political seasons heats up. The first delegate-selection contests are just weeks away, in January.
The court has given government an extensive role in the area on grounds that there is a fundamental national interest in rooting out corruption or even the appearance of it. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech, the court has said.
Soft money is just money which has not come in a small contribution. As the article says, money will find a way. In essence I think the whole thing is somewhat pointless, though a good airing will not hurt.
My concern is in the parts that effect free speach (bold) that this law has, and especially the reasoning for the limitation. In effect it will be difficult to respond to an attack under the law, since there are prohibitions on advertizing during the last weeks before an election. That the Court felt that Congress should have regulatory power in the area of political speech is shocking.
J
as long as they aren't lying ??? that funny . when did politicians started telling the truth about anything? I must have miss something. Personally I get sick of seeing those ads . i wouldn't cry if they banned them all together myself . Called it "Freedom of Silent"
