Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Impenitent · Dec 10, 2003, 02:17 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Dec10.html

Dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist:

"The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the 'close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties' makes all donations to the national parties 'suspect.' But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech, is not a surrogate for corruption; it is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands Congress' ability to regulate political speech..."

Dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia:

"This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restriction upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government..."

"The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy."

Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas:

"The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press... Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections. Nor is there any doubt that media companies often wish to influence elections. One would think that the New York Times fervently hopes that its endorsement of presidential candidates will actually influence people. What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is 'too influential,' and that the 'appearance of corruption' is significant when the media organizations endorse candidates or run 'slanted' or 'biased' news stories in favor of candidates or parties?"

Dissent by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

"The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people and Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it. The First Amendment commands that Congress 'shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.' The command cannot be read to allow Congress to provide for the imprisonment of those who attempt to establish new political parties and alter the civic discourse. ... The Court, upholding multiple laws that suppress both spontaneous and concerted speech, leaves us less free than before. Today's decision breaks faith with our tradition of robust and unfettered debate."

happy happy sheeple... trust your government...

white rice · Dec 11, 2003, 01:12 am

Destroyed? To get a majority opinion in light of First Amendment issues means that the campaign fundraising system is out of whack to the point where the most simple-minded fool can see that it's corrupt.

Impenitent · Dec 11, 2003, 02:40 am

corrupt it more by censoring political speech?

read the dissenting opinions more closely

white rice · Dec 11, 2003, 07:11 pm

The NRA and ACLU are up in arms against this... The majority opinion is upholding the soft and hard money limitations which tie directly with the dissenting member's opinons. Unrestricted donations from PACS and businesses are not considered free speech anymore. They view that as the more imminent threat and leaves future issues up for further debate and self regulation.

Impenitent · Dec 12, 2003, 12:24 am

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
The NRA and ACLU are up in arms against this... The majority opinion is upholding the soft and hard money limitations which tie directly with the dissenting member's opinons. Unrestricted donations from PACS and businesses are not considered free speech anymore. They view that as the more imminent threat and leaves future issues up for further debate and self regulation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

it's ok...

the special interest groups simply have to file a different tax form... change the section under which they file...

huge money for the GOP is back and the liberals are scrambling to catch up...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...of_small_money/

notice their lefty billionare (nice contradiction huh?) saviour soros coming in to give bush a hard time... but the right will simply use the loopholes in the bill as well...

white rice · Dec 12, 2003, 08:26 am

Heh, for everyone one Soros there's probably 5 Conservative oriented billionaires waiting to be awakened at the first sign of threat.

Democrat and Republican funding is cyclic. For what it's worth, McCain-Feingold was a bipartisan effort.

Maybe it won't matter a lick because gerrymandering has become so blatant and disgraceful and the public doesn't seem to notice or care. http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031208fa_fact

Dec 10, 2003, 02:17 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Dec10.html Dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist: "The court attempts to sidestep the unprecedented breadth of this regulation by stating that the 'close relationship between federal officeholders and the national parties' makes all donations to the national parties 'suspect.' But a close association with others, especially in the realm of political speech, is not a surrogate for corruption; it is one of our most treasured First Amendment rights. The court's willingness to impute corruption on the basis of a relationship greatly infringes associational rights and expands Congress' ability to regulate political speech..." Dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia: "This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restriction upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming, would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government..." "The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy." Dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas: "The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press... Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections. Nor is there any doubt that media companies often wish to influence elections. One would think that the New York Times fervently hopes that its endorsement of presidential candidates will actually influence people. What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is 'too influential,' and that the 'appearance of corruption' is significant when the media organizations endorse candidates or run 'slanted' or 'biased' news stories in favor of candidates or parties?" Dissent by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: "The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people and Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it. The First Amendment commands that Congress 'shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.' The command cannot be read to allow Congress to provide for the imprisonment of those who attempt to establish new political parties and alter the civic discourse. ... The Court, upholding multiple laws that suppress both spontaneous and concerted speech, leaves us less free than before. Today's decision breaks faith with our tradition of robust and unfettered debate." happy happy sheeple... trust your government... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 11, 2003, 01:12 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	Destroyed? To get a majority opinion in light of First Amendment issues means that the campaign fundraising system is out of whack to the point where the most simple-minded fool can see that it's corrupt. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 11, 2003, 02:40 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	corrupt it more by censoring political speech? read the dissenting opinions more closely "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 11, 2003, 07:11 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	The NRA and ACLU are up in arms against this... The majority opinion is upholding the soft and hard money limitations which tie directly with the dissenting member's opinons. Unrestricted donations from PACS and businesses are not considered free speech anymore. They view that as the more imminent threat and leaves future issues up for further debate and self regulation. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 12, 2003, 12:24 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,) The NRA and ACLU are up in arms against this... The majority opinion is upholding the soft and hard money limitations which tie directly with the dissenting member's opinons. Unrestricted donations from PACS and businesses are not considered free speech anymore. They view that as the more imminent threat and leaves future issues up for further debate and self regulation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> it's ok... the special interest groups simply have to file a different tax form... change the section under which they file... huge money for the GOP is back and the liberals are scrambling to catch up... http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...of_small_money/ notice their lefty billionare (nice contradiction huh?) saviour soros coming in to give bush a hard time... but the right will simply use the loopholes in the bill as well... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Dec 12, 2003, 08:26 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	Heh, for everyone one Soros there's probably 5 Conservative oriented billionaires waiting to be awakened at the first sign of threat. Democrat and Republican funding is cyclic. For what it's worth, McCain-Feingold was a bipartisan effort. Maybe it won't matter a lick because gerrymandering has become so blatant and disgraceful and the public doesn't seem to notice or care. http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031208fa_fact Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups