[SimeyTheLimey]

AP

Supreme Court Upholds Political Money Law

By Ann Gearan
Associated Press
Wednesday, December 10, 2003; 11:09 AM

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.

Being a McCain supporter, I supported the Act. However, I think it is already clear that the money has already found its way around the dam.

[petehammer]

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented on most issues

Excluding Kennedy, do these guys ever pretend to be impartial? Or does that not register on their collective radars?

[OldManMac]

This is really an irrelevant vote by now. As Simey already stated, the money will still come in. When have people who have money to buy influence ever worried about breaking a law?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Excluding Kennedy, do these guys ever pretend to be impartial? Or does that not register on their collective radars?

They are as impartial as Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg. Then there is Justice "I have a new 5 prong balancing test that nobody but me can apply" O'Connor.

Don't exaggerate the collective voting pattern. Lots of cases split along other lines.

[thunderous_funker]

Well, we know that the final form of the McCain-Feingold Bill was horribly flawed. This doesn't change that.

But it is a rather remarkable precedent. The court has definitively answered the question of whether or not the Congress can impose limits on "free speech" because it has an interest in protecting the electoral process from corruption and manipualation.

I don't think that decision can be understated. Its huge. And its very very good news. This opens the door for further reforms. Not to mention that enforcement can now begin in earnest now that the constitutionality of the law has been established.

[finboy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Excluding Kennedy, do these guys ever pretend to be impartial? Or does that not register on their collective radars?

And how were "those guys" partisan in this case?

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, we know that the final form of the McCain-Feingold Bill was horribly flawed. This doesn't change that.

But it is a rather remarkable precedent. The court has definitively answered the question of whether or not the Congress can impose limits on "free speech" because it has an interest in protecting the electoral process from corruption and manipualation.

I don't think that decision can be understated. Its huge. And its very very good news. This opens the door for further reforms. Not to mention that enforcement can now begin in earnest now that the constitutionality of the law has been established.

I haven't read the opinions or the case, but I have to think that this is a relatively restrictive (read: narrow) ruling. Otherwise all the folks who've argued that government is taking over with the Patriot Act would be up in arms right about now. Speech is free, or it isn't.

"Opens the door for further reforms" sounds like incrementalism in action. But leftist politics doesn't USE incrementalism.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by finboy:
I haven't read the opinions or the case, but I have to think that this is a relatively restrictive (read: narrow) ruling. Otherwise all the folks who've argued that government is taking over with the Patriot Act would be up in arms right about now. Speech is free, or it isn't.

"Opens the door for further reforms" sounds like incrementalism in action. But leftist politics doesn't USE incrementalism.

I take it you have no objections to parties being beholden to campaign contributors?

Seeing as how the soft money hurts democrats more than republicans I would have figured you'd be a fan of the measure.

Stamping out corruption is in everyone's interest. This a step in the right direction.

[adamk]

Originally posted by finboy:
Speech is free, or it isn't.

speech is protected. though i am not sure what writing a check has to do with speech. (not directed specifically towards you finboy, i was talking with a friend about this earlier today...)

campaign finance should be run as follows:

-every american citizen is able to donate a certain amount (say, $1000) to a campaign.
-parents may add money to their contribution for any minors in the household.

so you can give money if you want to "vote" with your checkbook, and then you can go and vote with your vote - you know, for real.

IMHO, adam

[thunderous_funker]

Give equal and free TV time to the candidates and they won't have to spend millions to run. Then nobody has to give tham a check and we can just decide with our votes.

Speech isn't free, its actually quite expensive. That is what makes the system inequitable.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Give equal and free TV time to the candidates and they won't have to spend millions to run. Then nobody has to give tham a check and we can just decide with our votes.

Speech isn't free, its actually quite expensive. That is what makes the system inequitable.

I agree with that, and have suggested it frequently, but even so, there are complications. for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura....just for instance. Even if you limit their actual campaigning to an equal amount, there are things outside of campaigning (previous high profile careers, etc.) that will make the matchup inequitable.

Still, If the candidates were limited to one half hour program, One full page newspaper ad, one hour of radio advertising, etc....how much more that would focus them to the issues and platforms. When they have unlimited access through commercials, they can afford to waste a lot of them on pointless attack ads. If you only had one shot, I'd think you would not spend it talking about your opponent.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If you only had one shot, I'd think you would not spend it talking about your opponent.

Unless your name is Gray Davis.

Yes. Limiting advertising as well as making TV time free are both key steps, IMO.

The staggering (and ever increasing) costs of running for major office means that anyone who isn't independently wealthy must suck up to one of the 2 parties and play their game or they don't get the money.

The nomination process is about courting the people in the party who write the checks, not about appealing to the voters.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I agree with that, and have suggested it frequently, but even so, there are complications. for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura....just for instance. Even if you limit their actual campaigning to an equal amount, there are things outside of campaigning (previous high profile careers, etc.) that will make the matchup inequitable.

Of course -- there's capital ($$$), but also symbolic capital (fame) and cultural capital (let's call it respect). These all exist in unequal amounts, and sometimes can be exchanged for one another in limited ways (money for fame, money for respect, fame for money, etc.).

Matchups are not supposed to be equitable (they can't be), but they are supposed to be fair.

[MacGorilla]

I am kind of surprised the Court upheld the law. Previously the Court has ruled $$$=Free Speech (an odd argument, but hey).

This time they asked, "Does the State have a compelling interest in regulating this kind of campaign finance" and ruled it did, citing the perception of a corrupt system. In these terms, the ruling does make sense. The State has a compelling interest in maintaining a corruption free electoral process (if such is possible these days).

I am happy the Court upheld the law and its a step in the right direction but the money will still find an outlet, somehow.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Being a McCain supporter, I supported the Act. However, I think it is already clear that the money has already found its way around the dam.

There are many reasons to admire McCain but this is definitely NOT one of them. Of course, Bush is responsible for this too. He signed the bill thinking the courts would do his dirty work for him and eventually overturn it. Congress, the President and now the Supreme Court - NONE of them did their job. They were sworn to uphold the Constitution but they all conspired to gut the First Amendment. This is an abysmally bad ruling. It doesn't matter if the money has found another way into the political process. Our government has NO business regulating political speech.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
There are many reasons to admire McCain but this is definitely NOT one of them. Of course, Bush is responsible for this too. He signed the bill thinking the courts would do his dirty work for him and eventually overturn it. Congress, the President and now the Supreme Court - NONE of them did their job. They were sworn to uphold the Constitution but they all conspired to gut the First Amendment. This is an abysmally bad ruling. It doesn't matter if the money has found another way into the political process. Our government has NO business regulating political speech.

I really don't know enough about this area of First Amendment law to comment on the constitutionality. As far as I know, previous campaign finance laws have been upheld. But this isn't something I have studied at all.

[davesimondotcom]

The new Second Amendment:

Congress shall make a couple of laws restricting the freedom of speech...maybe a few. Just enough to keep themselves in office. You know, to shut up those rabblerousers... maybe 3 or 4. 5 tops...

[BRussell]

I don't know. I used to be in favor of this, if only because I think the influence of money in politics is so destructive. But just for practical reasons, I think it's probably better to find some other methods than limiting money. What those are I don't know.

davesimon and roger, if you disagree with this ruling, do you think there are any problems with the system we have? And if so, what would you do to fix them?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The new Second Amendment:

Congress shall make a couple of laws restricting the freedom of speech...maybe a few. Just enough to keep themselves in office. You know, to shut up those rabblerousers... maybe 3 or 4. 5 tops...

What's going to happen to the old second amendment? If you renumber them all, we are going to get awfully confused.

[SimeyTheLimey]

OMG, I just saw this snippet on Volokh. Here is the supposed 5:4 voting lineup from the campaign finance case:

I think it might have the most complicated voting line-up ever. Here, verbatim, is the Court's own description of who lines up where in this one:

STEVENS and O.CONNOR, JJ., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, in which O.CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined except with respect to BCRA §305, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §§304, 305, 307, 316, 319, and 403(b). BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Title V, in which STEVENS, O.CONNOR, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, and concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, except for BCRA §§311 and 318, concurring in the result with respect to BCRA §318, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II, and dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I, V, and §311, in which opinion SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, II.A, and II.B. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined, in which SCALIA, J., joined except to the extent the opinion upholds new FECA §323(e) and BCRA §202, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §213. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA §305, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined.

Two things are clear.

1. This was a REALLY devided court and it is not accurate to call this opinion 5:4.

2. I am not going to read it and thank my lucky stars that this won't appear in any casebook I will be responsible for.

[chabig]

Give equal and free TV time to the candidates and they won't have to spend millions to run.

This sounds good, except TV time isn't the government's to give. Are you suggesting that the government take money from the taxpayers and use it to line the pockets of the big media corporations? Or are you suggesting the government, in the name of fairness, confiscate TV time to give to the candidates?

Neither of those sound very fair to me.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What's going to happen to the old second amendment? If you renumber them all, we are going to get awfully confused.

Should have said FIRST amendment, but I typed too quickly...

Ooops. Nice catch.

The second will end up gutted eventually anyway...

[finboy]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Should have said FIRST amendment, but I typed too quickly...

Ooops. Nice catch.

The second will end up gutted eventually anyway...

Did you hear about the attempted end-run by NRA? They're going to buy a cable channel and run their stuff there. Of course Democrats are up in arms about it (maybe the FEC has already ruled) because that could lead to... gasp... the breakup of the virtual media monopoly and opinion control of the left. Heaven forbid!

[petehammer]

I know! I've asked my cable provider to stop carrying the "Handgun Control, Inc." Channel.

[davesimondotcom]

It won't take long for loopholes to be found and exploited.

But hey, look at the bright side, maybe it will spawn a new diversity in media ownership!!!



Ask your cable or satellite provider today for the "All Guns, All the Time" channel.

Wait, new law, make it so that if someone subscribes to the NRA channel, they have to get the Gun Control Channel too. Hmmm... even things out.

[finboy]

Originally posted by petehammer:
I know! I've asked my cable provider to stop carrying the "Handgun Control, Inc." Channel.

Speaking of...

HCI evidently forgot what the law was in KY and IL recently, resulting in an FEC smackdown.

What a bureaucratic nightmare. Government employees have a sh*tty time issuing license plates, and now we'll expect them to determine what "free speech" is. They'll get to determine what "shades" of speech are acceptable. Goody.

[BlackGriffen]

You know, it just occurred to me why TV advertising, the main expense in a campaign's need for cash, is so expensive. It's because the airwaves are doled out as a few monopolies to mega media corps. If we were to deregulate the airwaves, the regulation of which was a violation of free speech anyways, this whole problem seems like it would evaporate.

Just a side thought.

BlackGriffen

[chabig]

You know, it just occurred to me why TV advertising, the main expense in a campaign's need for cash, is so expensive. It's because the airwaves are doled out as a few monopolies to mega media corps.

I don't think so. You see, bandwidth is a scarce resource. That's why frequencies are licensed and allocated. The big media companies are all publicly owned. You can see their books. They make money, but they are not rolling in money. Broadcasting is expensive.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
It won't take long for loopholes to be found and exploited...

Sure, but the NRA (or the Sierra Club or the NAACP, choose your own advocacy group) shouldn't need to find loopholes in order to participate in the political process. The First Amendment was written to protect political speech. This is a disgusting law and the Court has soiled itself by failing to overturn it.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by chabig:
This sounds good, except TV time isn't the government's to give. Are you suggesting that the government take money from the taxpayers and use it to line the pockets of the big media corporations? Or are you suggesting the government, in the name of fairness, confiscate TV time to give to the candidates?

Neither of those sound very fair to me.

Actually it is. Because the airwaves belong to the public and the government is the means by which the public dictates what happens with what belongs to the public.

Free TV time for candidates means broadcasters are not paid for campaign ads. Any ads paid for by PACs or others can be regulated differently, but candidates should all get equal and free TV space.

That would not only democratize the campaigns, but the entire process since it would open elections to those who don't have millions to spend.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Sure, but the NRA (or the Sierra Club or the NAACP, choose your own advocacy group) shouldn't need to find loopholes in order to participate in the political process. The First Amendment was written to protect political speech. This is a disgusting law and the Court has soiled itself by failing to overturn it.

$$$ is commercial speech, not political speech and therefore doesn't enjoy the same protections.

Any system that perpetuates a state where your freedom of speech is dictated by your checkbook is inherently and fundamentally undemocratic.

The constitutuion protects the notion of one person-one vote, not the system of one dollar-one vote.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
$$$ is commercial speech, not political speech and therefore doesn't enjoy the same protections.

The law specifically outlaws the airing of ads by advocacy groups within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. Of course that's political speech. Keep that head in the sand t_f. This law will only serve to protect incumbents and it does so at the expense of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[petehammer]

Did I miss the announcement that money was the same as speech?

[chabig]

Actually it is. Because the airwaves belong to the public and the government is the means by which the public dictates what happens with what belongs to the public.

Just because the government owns the road you drive on doesn't mean they own your car too.

The spectrum may belong to the public, but not the production and broadcasting facilities and equipment. So let the government build their own studios, their own networks, their own transmitters, and hire their own production staff. Then you can convince me that television time belongs to the government.

Forcing the television networks to give away free airtime would be just like telling you that you must let me have free use of your car every Wednesday and Saturday.

Chris

[BRussell]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Did I miss the announcement that money was the same as speech?

You must have. They made it in 1976.

As I understand it, your money, as a candidate, is speech, but other people's money that they give you isn't, so it can be regulated.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
The law specifically outlaws the airing of ads by advocacy groups within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. Of course that's political speech. Keep that head in the sand t_f. This law will only serve to protect incumbents and it does so at the expense of the First Amendment:

Current election laws already banned such ads for candidates and parties. The new law merely extends that ban to groups that are working for and on behalf of parties and candidates. Its closing a loophole in existing election law.

The constitution protects speech, not advertising. We're talking about TV ads, not your freedom to speak.

Now if the courts banned every and all donations to campaigns, you might have a first amendment argument. They didn't. You are free to contribute to campaigns and politicians. Of course, there are limits. Not because your freedom is being limited, but rather because the constitution also has an interest in equal protection of those freedoms. Your constitutional right to speech does not increase with your net worth.

There are many conflicting rights and interests which have to be balanced here. I consider this ruling to be a move towards more equality and less corruption.

If donating money is free speech, then this law returns that right to individuals rather than labor unions and corporations. Why should their speech be protected at the expense of individuals?

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Current election laws already banned such ads for candidates and parties. The new law merely extends that ban to groups that are working for and on behalf of parties and candidates. Its closing a loophole in existing election law.

The constitution protects speech, not advertising. We're talking about TV ads, not your freedom to speak.

It's political speech. The ads are made to influence elections. You can talk your way around this all day but it doesn't change a damn thing. I already know what side you're on. All the rationalizations in the world doesn't make your position any less of an assault on the First Amendment.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
It's political speech. The ads are made to influence elections. You can talk your way around this all day but it doesn't change a damn thing. I already know what side you're on. All the rationalizations in the world doesn't make your position any less of an assault on the First Amendment.

Exaclty. This is about how money influences elections, not speech. There is nothing in the first amendment that protects the right to use money to influence elections. In fact, we have election laws that have always aimed at preventing exactly that.

If the political speech we are talking about was freely available to everyone equally, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. There would be nothing to debate. But because some political speech is made available only to those with millions to pay for it do we find ourselves in a situation where first amendment rights of individuals are being trampled by labor unions and corporations.

When the rights of labor unions and corporations effectively infringe on the rights of individuals, then I want the government to side with individuals.

Why on earth would anyone want to protect the status quo?

[finboy]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Sure, but the NRA (or the Sierra Club or the NAACP, choose your own advocacy group) shouldn't need to find loopholes in order to participate in the political process. The First Amendment was written to protect political speech. This is a disgusting law and the Court has soiled itself by failing to overturn it.

Geez, I guess some speech is more free than other speech.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
There is nothing in the first amendment that protects the right to use money to influence elections.

There's nothing in the First Amendment that even talks about elections. Hence, the Supremes are making law, not interpreting it.

You guys who are all about the rights of ordinary people and populism, usually, are completely missing the boat on this one.

This is the kind of Bill of Rights parsing that is usually reserved for the Second Amendment, not the first. The normal leftist interpretation of the First Amendment, if applied to the Second, would end up requiring everyone to own a gun.

I respect folks' right to their opinion, I just ask them to try to be consistent in their logic. Geez.

[Lerkfish]

so...just want to get the republican guidebook straight here:

--- advocacy groups spending money to influence an election: Free speech which must be protected.

--- Antiwar protestors: Not free speech and not to be protected

--- Celebrity outspokenness on political issues: Susan Sarandon: NOT free speech, she should shut the hell up already.
The general who called Iraq a "holy war": Free speech, he was just expressing his opinion.

ok...I guess that clears that up.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
--- Celebrity outspokenness on political issues: Susan Sarandon: NOT free speech, she should shut the hell up already.

Who is telling Saran-wrap she can't speak? Oh, you mean when people disagree with her. That's not allowed, is it? If the public disagrees with a liberal and says so, that is the same as government supression of free speech?

No, I don't think so. The idea of free speech is a public free-for-all. It's not freedom from criticism.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm still waiting for those outraged at this infringement of their liberty to explain to me what is desirable about the status quo.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
It won't take long for loopholes to be found and exploited.

Like Soros giving $10 million to Moveon.org, for example.

[zigzag]

I took a shot at reading the opinion but it's just too cumbersome to read on-line. I'll wait for the TV movie.

I'm very protective of First Amendment rights, so my bias is against this sort of thing. It doesn't mean I like the status quo, it just means that I might have to live with the status quo. I think The Donny & Marie Show is corrupting too but the Constitution nonetheless protects their right to sing. Together. Gazing into each other's eyes. Yechh.

That said, I'm a pragmatist and recognize that there limits to everything. When people tell me that the Second Amendment right is absolute, I ask them if that means every citizen has the right to aim nuclear-tipped missiles at their neighbors, and it shuts 'em right up (I think the language of the Second is ambiguous anyway, but that's another matter).

So, my bias is against this sort of thing but I can live with it. The real problem, as I see it, is that it probably won't work. Even the Court admits this. If legislation that might threaten First Amendment rights isn't likely to work, I'd be inclined to hold against it. We're potentially creating an even thicker boondoggle of regulations that could backfire on those who most need access to the media.

But I'm not an expert on it and hope that it does have a positive effect.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Exaclty. This is about how money influences elections, not speech...

The ads. are. speech. You're being obtuse.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Did I miss the announcement that money was the same as speech?

It is if you want to talk into something other than a bullhorn.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm still waiting for those outraged at this infringement of their liberty to explain to me what is desirable about the status quo.

I, for one, hate some of the ads that are put on during the election season. Too effing bad for me. The government has no business regulating political speech.

We already have laws against bribery. If it can be shown a legislator changed his position because of a campaign contribution, THAT'S corruption and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm still waiting for those outraged at this infringement of their liberty to explain to me what is desirable about the status quo.

2 weeks until an election and I feel strongly about a candidate, and i want to buy an ad.

In 2000, I could buy whatever ad i wanted. Now, i can't buy squat due to this law. But Soros and his buying of MoveOn.org - he simply places a phone call to his lackeys there, and tells them to run an ad on the eve of the election.

With the status quo w/ regards to this issue, I could spend and speak freely right up until the election. Now, unless I buy a foundation, I don't have that right.

[roger_ramjet]

Washington Post columnist, Robert Samuelson, on the ruling, "The court's decision is a constitutional crime that invites comparison with Plessy v Ferguson (1896), the ruling that upheld racial segregation..."

(link)