Supreme Court Case Protects 1st Amendment!

http://www.nysun.com/article/61425
A recent Supreme Court ruling struck down a provision of the McCain-Feingold act preventing people from airing advertisements 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.  The ruling is seen by many as a victory for the 1st Amendment.  The majority opinion for the case was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of George W. Bush.  Critics of the McCain-Feingold law often refer to it as the Incumbent Protection act due to the restrictions it implements on speech during elections, serving to shield politicians from criticism. 

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS THE BEST THING AMERICA EVER HAD

Great. Spam.

The liberals got owned.

McCain-Feingold 2003 made it easier for people who were running but didn't have the funds to compete. It may be a victory for the first amendment, but be prepared to see some vicious ads and some conspicuous campaign contribution records.

>>5
The 1st amendment must be paramount, everything must work around it or it will create loopholes for people to exploit. The law preventing advertismenets could have been abused by the state to boycott rivals.

>>5
Also bear in mind 1 advertisement just before an election is worth a lot more than an advertisement 2 months before. This means that smaller parties get more bang for their buck. People will most likely watch the same advertisements several times by election time and seeing 1 smaller party's advert at a critical time has more effect and works in smaller party's favour.

>>7

Yes, but you're forgetting what a free election is, which is in contrast to the Freedom of Speech (hereby referenced as FoS). Listen. Elections and campaign contributions make for situations where there is what is known as an appearance of impropriety, and this is a very specific terminology. What the appearance of impropriety in public elections does (such as let's say Hillay Clinton receiving 10 million dollars from Merck Pharmaceuticals and winning the election and thereby passing legislation which favors Merck would qualify for a shady dealing in elections).

How do we counteract this and keep elections clean? McCain-Feingold checks the appearance of impropriety by a number of provisions.

Among the provisions are limitations on campaign contributions, limitations on campaigns in their behavior, and the most controversial and challenged provision was the one that was overturned (ads before elections).

I can see why the court would disagree with the last provision, but I can also see why the Senate passed it as well, and that's to keep public elections fair in terms of campaign contribution amounts, so politician X with $80,000 compared to politician Y with 80,000,000 would be seen on equal terms on the airwaves before the election.

What this ruling does is allow person Y to use their 80,000,000 to X's 80,000 to just FILL THE FUCKING PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS WITH ADS and thereby win the election. That wreaks of impropriety and is not a public election.

>>8 Preventing interest groups like the ACLU or the NRA from airing issue ads that hold politicians accountable for their voting records while they were in congress is not going to make for a better election imo.

The NRA, the ACLU, and other interest groups should have the right to free speech, and they should have the right to criticize politicians at any time, even if it is 10 days prior to the election. 

>>9

But let's think this out, do people really engage in discussion of politics, of the pro and the cons of certain positions or do they just take some side and stick with it because it's trendy/cool/whatever.

I'd be hard pressed to find a Republican who supports the ACLU just as I'd be hard pressed to find a Liberal who likes the NRA. I'm sure both occur, but probably not at the frequency there would be should people actually consider their own political positions.

tl;dr -- I think 527s hurt elections because people aren't critical of their own position and would just be pressed through propaganda to vote whatever "their" 527 has to say whether it's true or not -- case in point -- Swift Boat Veterans for Trooooth.

>>8
I don't see how. Voting isn't like selecting which soda to buy.

>>11
wrong.

>>12
You don't get any pleasure from voting. It's altruistic.

>>10
The ACLU supports a lot more than just the constitution.  If they would drop their push for affirmative action, gun control, and abortion, I doubt many republicans would have that big a problem with them.  The NRA is a much more simple case - they are out to support the Second Amendment, and they do.

holy shit, the supreme court is still upholding the 1st ammendment? wierd.

is cheney still on office?

>>15
Don't you mean Bush?

>>16
no, i mean Cheney. Bush is just a pawn, Cheney is the evil one.

>>17
Bush is president, if someone hands him a speech he doesn't have to read it, if someone hands him a sheet of paper he doesn't have to sign it.