• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court reconsiders McCain-Feingold

Cold Highway

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How and the hell can USSPC over turn any US Code that went thru USSPC already and was signed off by both Congress and the President of the United States Chief Justice roberts is out of line with this ruling to open it up to a broader relm is wrong and he needs to be told that in very plain talk by Sen.McCain They should only rule on the case before them and nothing more. It's time that the USSPC do their ****ing jobs and stop trying to enterject their oppions
 
In case it has escaped you, the Supreme Court can pretty much do as it likes, and they are only bound by precedent unless they decide not to be.
 
McCain-Feingold RAPES the First Amendment.

The USSC made a majorly wrong ruling when MF was allowed to stand when it first came across their bench.

IMO, the issue isn't the failure of anyone to disclose funding, but the power the FEC has to forbid broadcast of ANYTHING. Even if it's libelous, no suit can be brought for that to be determined until AFTER it's been aired. Prior restraint on speech is supposed to be a no-no in America.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
It should be heard, McCain-Feingold is a government restriction on free speech.

Supreme Court reconsiders McCain-Feingold - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

I have to disagree completely. Equating campaign contributions to speech doesn't work. Money is not speech and people can stillsay anything they want they just can't buy a candidate and thereby have undo control over them for life as a result. Further more Companies are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights People have rights under the Constitution not Businesses.
Companies give big to gain influence not for the good of the country but for selfish personal gains for that company.
If anyone thinks that giving to or supporting and candidate does not create corruption you need look no farther than Obama's ties to ACORN or Obama's abrupt decision to fire the inspector general of the AmeriCorps program, Gerald Walpin who found corruption on the part of an Obama contributor. This termination broke a law Obama pushed and still he did it and because of corruption in Congress and party politics he got away with it.
I have no idea what the answer is to stop the rampant corruption in our system that is growing these days faster than ever, but I do know that misinterpreting the Constitution and giving rights guaranteed people to business is a major mistake and will lead to a bevy of problems not so far anticipated.
The amount of contributions given needs to have some control or we'll be at the mercy of who ever has the most cash to spend to buy the election as the new "Messiah in Chief" Obama did by filling his campaign with nothing but lies repeated and unchallenged by a complicit media that made hundreds of millions from both sides in the 2008 race, but made much more from their guy in the race.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
It should be heard, McCain-Feingold is a government restriction on free speech.

Supreme Court reconsiders McCain-Feingold - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

To be clear, they already agreed to reconsider it last year. The only part of this that's news is that they're allowing reargument in the case. Personally, I was expecting them to limit McCain-Feingold yesterday in their decision. This only makes it more likely.

Here's a good explanation of the process:

Briefing set on Citizens United rehearing | SCOTUSblog

Scorpion89 said:
How and the hell can USSPC over turn any US Code that went thru USSPC already and was signed off by both Congress and the President of the United States Chief Justice roberts is out of line with this ruling to open it up to a broader relm is wrong and he needs to be told that in very plain talk by Sen.McCain They should only rule on the case before them and nothing more. It's time that the USSPC do their ****ing jobs and stop trying to enterject their oppions
Click to expand...

This is the case before them.
Nothing about this is even remotely out of line - this is how the judiciary works.
 
Councilman said:
I have to disagree completely. Equating campaign contributions to speech doesn't work. Money is not speech and people can stillsay anything they want they just can't buy a candidate and thereby have undo control over them for life as a result.
Click to expand...

I never thought of the financial rules as limiting of free speech necessarily. However, the fact that certain third party campaign ads are outlawed prior to the election, or that campaign ads paid for by the campaigns are illegal unless the candidate is heard saying the words "my name is X and I approve this message," etc. There are actual limits on free speech in McCain-Feingold that do not have anything to do with giving money.
 
McCain-Feingold is a horrible piece of legislation which only works to protect the incumbents and further isolate the system from the People. While there was a need for proper finance contribution reform, this bill in no way took care of what it should have. In fact, it went the entire opposite way that it should have gone. The system needs to open up and free participation needs to be allowed. I hope the SCOTUS rules against this terrible law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom