I was surprised many here didn't pop in to praise the U.S. Supreme Court's horrible decision last month upholding the so-called campaign finance reform law.

I'm all for reforming the financing or campaigns, and I readily admit I don't have the answer on how exactly to do it. I'll leave that up to others. However, I DO know how not to do it, and this law is one example. Besides being an affront to the U.S. Constitution, the law, as I've said many times before, is a true "Incumbent Protection Act."

I ask my liberal and conservative friends: Do you REALLY think President Bush would sign something that made it easier for a candidate to challenge him? Hardly.

After reading the decision and its opinions, I clearly see that this is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the nation's history. The comments of Justices O'Connor, Breyer, and Stephens are despicable. They're also hypocritical. The latter two especially, known liberals, are known for supposedly supporting free speech and other "do what you want" attitudes, yet they so blatantly rape the First Amendment with their convoluted logic.

Here's an article from someone who is generally a liberal in terms of his ideology, but who writes an excellent piece on this bogus law.

Click HERE for the text of the Supreme Court decision in this case.

You all can bitch all you want about Justice Scalia, but he's 100% correct on his free speech arguments. Perhaps it should be noted that he has consistently been one of the leading advocates of free speech rights, voting twice to strike down bans on flag burning and desecration.

[ January 05, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

I come from a country with an entirely different tradition in these matters so I dont want to get involved in a discussion of the First Amendment per se but surely the opposing candidate can make the same attack on an incumbent's voting record anyway? Let the challenger speak for himself without relying on other organisations to do the negative campaigning on his behalf.

Do these new laws allow for anonymous political speech? If the donors regardless of wealth are able to promote any speech they want without identifying themselves, it doesn't seem to me like any reform will work.

I still don't understand why one of the best and easiest solutions to a big problem is just to allow anyone to contribute any amount at any time, but such contributor must provide full disclosure immediately (meaning within 24 hours, for example). In today's world, with the Internet and all, such full and complete disclosure is not difficult at all.

This way, voters can readily see just who is giving money to a particular candidate.

I'll probably post these links in the Dean thread, too, since it relates to that topic as well.

Some interesting article on the real effects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law:

An editorial

An article

Well, isn't this interesting?

The Congressional Black Caucus is now regretting the implementation of the McCain-Feingold law. As Mr. Meeks said, "If I had to vote again, I would vote against this bill....This law is terrible and has only made matters worse....there is more money and corruption now than before this law was passed....the real winners are lobbyists, special interests,...and Republicans aren't doing to shabby either."

I told the masses this bill was terrible, and that so-called campaign finance "reform" was a smokescreen. However, most folks here in many threads held the attitude that it was better than nothing--it isn't; or that it's a start--it's not.

Politicians will never get the money out of politics, so all talk about "election finance reform" is total BS. Money flows through politics like water through a sieve and it always will.

Actually, there is a way to get the money out of politics. Canada is talking about changing their election law and new proposals include a set dollar amount per candidate, with the funds coming from the government. No corporate donations of any kind allowed, and while the politicial parties can raise money, there are strict controls over where it comes from, and what it can be spent on. All donation lists are public, immediately. All third party advertising is banned. This levels the playing field amongst all candidates, no matter what their political strip.
I hope this revised legislation gets passed.

Saw an article in the paper today that says New Jersey effectively implemented similar laws to those you mention. Apparently corruption still reigns. Not only are some disobeying the law, others seem to be finding ways around it. As I understand it, it was this sort of corruption that brought down McGreevey.

But the worst is that the laws seem to make it difficult for anyone who isn't a millionaire (a few times over) to run a credible campaign - thus a well-healed Corzine has no credible opposition for the Democratic nomination for governor.

Laws limiting how much of ones own fortune can be spent may be more difficult to pass and enforce if opponents invoke 'freedom of speech' arguements.