McCain-Feingold de-fanged

[Questor]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/campaign.finance.ruling/index.html

Fascinating. This is seems to take the teeth out of the disastrous McCain-Feingold law

[Questor]

The trouble with this and too many other decisions is that it was 5-4. That means we've got 4 that don't seem to recognize what the first amendment is.

[Graybeard]

What it really means is that if obama gets to appoint a judge to the court the decisions will be reversed and by a 5-4 vote the Constitution will slowly wither and die.

[Questor]

I just don't understand how so many of these justices can rule the way they do. Kelo vs. New London is one example. I also don't understand why the court agreed to hear the Chicago gun ownership case that was practically identical to the Washington DC case that they ruled 5-4 on. Maybe I'm just not a wise latina.

[Dee]

What I find most facinating is that folks here, "are now concerned" about the McCain-Fiengold Act, AFTER voting for McCain to be president a year ago. Amazing. You guys wanted him to be president.

[Graybeard]

I just don't understand how so many of these justices can rule the way they do. Kelo vs. New London is one example. I also don't understand why the court agreed to hear the Chicago gun ownership case that was practically identical to the Washington DC case that they ruled 5-4 on. Maybe I'm just not a wise latina.

DC is a federal district and so it really only applied there. The Chicago case will determine if the Second Amendment applies to states, cities and counties.

[Questor]

It took quite an evil for McCain to be the lesser of the two. I still think that the Obam-ster was the lesser of the two evils, as hard as it seems to believe.

[SHOOTALL]

DEE DEE DEE , there you go clouding the issues with facts again .

[Questor]

I was just lulled into thinking that the supreme court of the united states heard cases that apply to the the entire country. This means that you could challenge anything in DC and not have it be precedent in the rest of the country.

[magooch]

Dee, I think you are wrong.  We didn't necessarily want McGore for President, we just didn't want the Obamanation for anything.

And Questor, I don't know what to tell ya, except to say you wildly underestimate Obama's evil rating.

[Dee]

Dee, I think you are wrong.  We didn't necessarily want McGore for President, we just didn't want the Obamanation for anything.

And Questor, I don't know what to tell ya, except to say you wildly underestimate Obama's evil rating.

magooch did ya vote for McCain?


                    BOY! WAS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN EVER SPOT ON!

[SHOOTALL]

They have already said they would change the words and try again . de fanged ?

[Redtail1949]

yep they will try again and again.

however at least in this case the court appied the law based on the constitution. thats why the supream court and its make up is more much more important than who is president. we have all witnessed what activist judges and a left leaning court did to our freedoms and other things in the last 40 years.

[Casull]

What I find most facinating is that folks here, "are now concerned" about the McCain-Fiengold Act, AFTER voting for McCain to be president a year ago. Amazing. You guys wanted him to be president.

Talk about a broken record.  Despite his shortcomings, Dee do you really think McCain would have appointed the same type of Justice as Obama?  At least as a Republican, the party would have pressured McCain for a more conservative choice.  That's just one of those "little" areas where the lesser of two evils is better than the greater of two. 

[Casull]

What it really means is that if obama gets to appoint a judge to the court the decisions will be reversed and by a 5-4 vote the Constitution will slowly wither and die.

Exactly, GB.

[Dee]

What I find most facinating is that folks here, "are now concerned" about the McCain-Fiengold Act, AFTER voting for McCain to be president a year ago. Amazing. You guys wanted him to be president.

Talk about a broken record.  Despite his shortcomings, Dee do you really think McCain would have appointed the same type of Justice as Obama?  At least as a Republican, the party would have pressured McCain for a more conservative choice.  That's just one of those "little" areas where the lesser of two evils is better than the greater of two.  

The topic Dufuss, is the McCain-Feingold Act, that the Republicans did NOTHING about when they were in power. McCain is the TRAITOR that came up with it, you voted for him, and now your worried about the problems it could cause, yet you defend the jackass. That makes just about as much sense as your capable of making. Broken record? You can't even read the label to see what record is playing. Keep voting my rights away genius, I don't expect anything any different from ya.
Now! With that said, I'm gonna put ya back on my "doesn't exist list". You should start one, and put me on it.


   HEY MR. FRANKLIN! HERE'S ONE OF THE BOYS YOU WERE TALKIN ABOUT!

[Casull]

The topic Dufuss, is the McCain-Feingold Act, that the Republicans did NOTHING about. Broken record? You can't even read the label to see what record is playing. Keep voting my rights away genesis I don't expect anything any different from ya. Now! With that said, your back on my "doesn't exist list". You should start one, and put me on it.

Sorry old clown.  I thought you could understand more than the title.  My mistake.  The majority of the Republicans voted AGAINST McCain-Feingold, but then again you've never let facts get in the way of a good rant.  I guess you just can't follow the SCOTUS appointments thing.   

[sagegrouse715]

Someone please enlighten me on how this Supreme Court ruling makes the election process better. As I understand it, this  means that corporations and unions are considered like people and can now spend millions of dollars to influence the outcome of elections.  It renders the $25 the common guy donates worthless.  This ruling is wonderful if one wants the government to be run by the power brokers and union leadership.  It seems to me, this ruling means that the Trilateralist will have even more influence on government

[briarpatch]

Under the insane/mindcold  act the union leaders ran the elections. The elitest like soros and many others controlled the country for the socialist.  Now, we the people can get together and be a voice.
Instead of asking read the bill.; I mean read it. This was monumental, this ruling.
We the people now scare the liars in DC.
The true test if somethig is good or bad. Watch who is crying. If obama and his ilk, then the ruling was good. If the people, then it is bad.
No harder than that.
Do you honestly think, that unlawful act stopped money from the coffers of the whores in DC.  Only the people my friend,l only the people lost with that. 

[beerbelly]

Obama hates this rulling! That should tell you all you need to know about it!
                  Beerbelly                                     

[sagegrouse715]

BeerBelly:

Read Matt's post.  It says it all.

[jimster]

"Someone please enlighten me on how this Supreme Court ruling makes the election process better"

It doesn't, but they probably didn't rule on what would make elections "better".  There may be other consideratons at play.

"As I understand it, this  means that corporations and unions are considered like people and can now spend millions of dollars to influence the outcome of elections."

Unions and some others already could.  Matter of fact the Unions are using our tax money right now to elect people you might not agree with.  Cause someone decided our tax money will hold them up and be given to them. They don't even have their own money for influence...they use ours.  How ironic.

The last election Obama made more money in the shortest time than anyone ever....he should have no problem opening up the flood gates for more yet.
Matter of fact, he made enough money to buy millions of people health care....too bad all that money went to waste. 

[Questor]

There sure is a lot of BS flying around about what this case was actually about.

[jimster]

Writing for the court’s five conservatives, Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled that a central provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance act violated the First Amendment by restricting corporations from funding political messages in the run-up to elections.

"The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," Justice Kennedy wrote in a 57-page opinion.

The very effort to sift permissible corporate political spending from that which violates the law chilled political speech, Justice Kennedy wrote.

The decision voids a key provision of the signature legislative achievement of Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who partnered with Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to draft the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which informally carries their names.


Sounds like it was about this...but there is a lot of bs that goes with it I guess.

If Barney Frank is scrambling along with Obama to get it changed with new laws, I imagine it's something they won't benifit them.

[thxmrgarand]

I didn't agree with McCain so far as McCain-Feingold and I didn't trust McCain or President GW Bush on immigration but I would still vote for either of them again.

So far as the Supreme Court ruling, state legislatures are now wringing their hands over what they see as the implications.  I think they are false in their statements, and I also think that any court ruling that increases my rights cannot be bad.   I recommend anyone watch this short YouTube presentation:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/03/three-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-ruling/

[Questor]

There are a lot of misconceptions about what the court actually ruled on. Even the president apparently is getting bad information as to what it means because he was absoutely dead wrong in his statements about it during the state of the union address. There is a law that is very broad in scope and prohibits campaign finance using money from abroad. The court did not address that law at all.

Of course the president has also been known to make malicious false statements during speeches before.

[nomosendero]

I didn't agree with McCain so far as McCain-Feingold and I didn't trust McCain or President GW Bush on immigration but I would still vote for either of them again.

So far as the Supreme Court ruling, state legislatures are now wringing their hands over what they see as the implications.  I think they are false in their statements, and I also think that any court ruling that increases my rights cannot be bad.   I recommend anyone watch this short YouTube presentation:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/03/three-reasons-not-to-sweat-the-citizens-united-ruling/

Outstanding film & no one here will be able to refute it, guaranteed!! To look at those who oppose it tells you everything you need to know. 

It won't hurt me any & TM it probably won't help you though, GE is a huge Corp. which owns CBS/MSNBC & they make sure your views are being heard, which was being done before this decision.

[nomosendero]

It's really not that tough, Corp. such as GE & the major medias & the large papers which are also sometimes
large Corporations have had a free reign for a long time. It appears the Lib, Progressives, Obamanites, etc.
don't like the idea that a Corporation like Remington or a group like the NRA or a Sportsman organization can do the same. Will some bad folks abuse this, yep & that happens, but good forces will use it as well & it is up to us to decipher as it should be. Will it help you personally, probably not & I don't care if it helps me or not as long as it does not limit me in my Constitional rights, as Obama's view of this would. I don't look at things from the standpoint of "what will it do for me", I just don't fit into this entitlement mentality.

An open mind is good, but it is not necessary that anyone here has to explain it, I don't have a problem understanding it, whether I can convey those thoughts well is not the issue. I am sure you can get the info you need away from this forum, I have no doubt.

[thxmrgarand]

In this age when all 3 branches of government seem hell-bent to take away my rights, any court ruling that removes restrictions is welcome.  Right now I am listening to a huge corporation called National Public Radio; not only has NPR not been restricted in getting out its political message but they receive appropriations of my tax money.  If now we can hear (unsubsidized) messages from the likes of the NRA and the local auto dealer then that is great.  I can sort out what to believe and what will make me laugh.  If NPR harangues me to vote of some liberal and the local real estate firm harangues me to vote for the opponent, I can sort out for myself how to vote but thanks to the court ruling I may now hear two voices instead of the one.   

[nomosendero]

It's really not that tough, Corp. such as GE & the major medias & the large papers which are also sometimes
large Corporations have had a free reign for a long time. It appears the Lib, Progressives, Obamanites, etc.
don't like the idea that a Corporation like Remington or a group like the NRA or a Sportsman organization can do the same. Will some bad folks abuse this, yep & that happens, but good forces will use it as well & it is up to us to decipher as it should be. Will it help you personally, probably not & I don't care if it helps me or not as long as it does not limit me in my Constitional rights, as Obama's view of this would. I don't look at things from the standpoint of "what will it do for me", I just don't fit into this entitlement mentality.

An open mind is good, but it is not necessary that anyone here has to explain it, I don't have a problem understanding it, whether I can convey those thoughts well is not the issue. I am sure you can get the info you need away from this forum, I have no doubt.
.

.
So disregarding a few backhanded quips in your explanation...that's the gist of it.? Seems like any organization has had the right to freedom of speech right along with any of the media corps and other corps. Seems like the scales of democracy have been tipped in favor of the biggest spenders wherever and whoever they are.  If anything this makes a very unlevel playing field as far as citizens and the machinery of democracy are concerned. People that support this kind of ruling apparently are willing to opt out of their own political activism and leave it to the loudest surrogate monied class to battle out the issues...then complain when their side is outspent, out loud mouthed, out dazzled, and out voted. I can see how many would think this is 'progress' given an anti-regulation bent; and how others would think this is degress given a fair play bent.



..TM7

But that was allready happening, but just from one side. Nothing backhanded, just don't see a need to explain something this simple.

Have a great weekend