McCain-Feingold is Dead

[BPSCG]

I'm only surprised it took this long.

The Supreme Court today substantially weakened the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act's restrictions on the kinds of ads corporations, unions and special interest groups may run in the days before an election.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the 5-4 opinion for the court, saying that the act's prohibition against groups naming federal candidates in ads broadcast before an election was unconstitutional in some cases. But he and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not go as far as other conservatives wanted to rule the restrictions in the act were always unconstitutional.

The difference between so-called "issue ads," which are allowed, and those that "express advocacy," which are banned, is often hard to define, Robert said.

"In drawing that line, the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it," Roberts wrote.

It's just a matter of time before the rest of it crumbles.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Took them long enough.

 

[davefoc]

Campaign financing seems to be a difficult problem regardless of one's ideology.

The six years of the Bush administration have seen a doubling in the size of the lobbying industry in Washington and it appears that campaign contributions/bribes dominates American policy from the Medicare drug plan to ethanol subsidies.

Is there any kind of legislation that could reverse this trend?

My own cut at this problem is that the American system depends on a president that stands up to special interests at least to some degree and who uses the power of the veto to control the excesses of what is always a corrupt and cynical congress. For six years the US has been encumbered with a president that has the opposite idea, to use special interest legislation as the cornerstone of a policy to advance the interests of his party. Is there any kind of campaign finance legislation that could have mitigated the damage done by such a president?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Good riddance.

Limiting political ads is limiting free speech, IMHO.

 

[Beerina]

I'm quite happy with the Surpreme Court as it is, threading the needle between just enough to the right to generate this type of result (economic and speech freedoms) without overturning you know what.

For this issue in particular, the idea that speech can be surpressed because money may influence officials is rather odd. Lessening the burden officials have carry to get money is less important than speech itself. Remember the hoops they jump thru are to get money to buy political speech ads.


CNN gives a little more of the legal reasoning...

 

[TragicMonkey]

I never got over the irony of one of the Keating Five declaring himself against the corrupting influence of political donations.

 

[corplinx]

Bush's counter-proposal to McCain Feingold was a simple total disclosure one. Not surprising, full disclosure is also key to the Carville plan. (you know, James Carville, the guy about 180 degrees of Bush)

I wonder why congress sought to limit political ads before elections but didn't want full disclosure. Hmmm......

As bad as Bush's domestic agenda is, this was one of the ones where Dubya was right.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Bush's counter-proposal to McCain Feingold was a simple total disclosure one. Not surprising, full disclosure is also key to the Carville plan. (you know, James Carville, the guy about 180 degrees of Bush)

I wonder why congress sought to limit political ads before elections but didn't want full disclosure. Hmmm......

As bad as Bush's domestic agenda is, this was one of the ones where Dubya was right.

I disagree: it *would* have been one where he was right.

But he signed the thing anyway and hoped that the SC would clean up his mess, and it's taking a looong time.