America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
It's Unconstitutional
Published on September 6, 2007 By Moderateman In US Domestic

It has been five years since the Congress passed the so called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 20902 [BCRA]. It was co-authored by Senators Russel Feingold {D-Wis}, who at the time was running unopposed in a primary election, and John McCain {R-AZ}. President Bush signed the BCRA into law. Some believe the president signed it because he felt sure it would be overturned as being unconstitutional by SCOTUS, Since it did damage our first Amendment rights.

This federal law made it a FELONY to use corporate funds, like dues from the NRA OR AARP, pro-life groups, unions and other grassroots groups to run ads 30 days before primary elections, and 60 days before general elections, IF THEY MENTIONED a candidate's NAME!

The first time this law was tested at the SCOTUS level was December,2003, the case was McConnell vrs The Federal Election Commission [FEC}this challenge was led by Senator Mitch McConnell {R_KY}. However in a 5 to 4 decision the court upheld the constitutionality of BCRA. But that was before Sandra Day O'Connor resigned and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died. They were, after much turmoil, replaced by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. It was Justice O'Connor that provided the swing vote that formed the majority opinion upholding BCRA! With the make-up of the court in 2003, the effort was doomed to failure.

However  in a stunning turnaround that summer a new case was heard by SCOTUS, IT was the FEC vrs Wisconsin Right to life, inc {WRTL}. WTRL wanted to tell voters that Senator Russell Feingold {remember him? he that co-authored the BCRA} was leading a movement to filibuster, President Bush's judicial nominees. The ads would call on voters to to "encourage" Feingold to change his mind, As I stated earlier the BCRA would stop any ads naming Feingold, due to the blackout period created by the act. The filibuster effort was aided by Senators Chuck the Schmuck Schumer{D_NY} and Drunken Ted Kennedy {D_MASS} was designed to kill any up or down vote on any Bush nominee, who were not seen as 'LIBERAL' The Scotus agreed with WTRL, the ads succeeded and Roberts and Alito were installed as the new Chief Justice and new Justice. The Majority Opinion was written by a newly installed Chief Justice Roberts, with justices Stevens, Souter. Ginsburg and Breyer crying like babies in their soup of dissent and defeat. Roberts pointed out that the Law BCRA as applied to 'ISSUE' ads is unconstitutional. This opinion directly contradicted the 2003 ruling SCOTUS ruling, which upheld the law.

In his majority opinion Roberts wrote " Discussion of Issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent to an election" "Where the First Amendment is implicated the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor!"

In My opinion the entire Law BCRA should be abolished as unconstitutional because it curtails our freedom of speech, during the so called 'blackout periods" At no time should any Government institution be allowed to say when and where an American can speak his or her mind about a candidate, it might be my words that sway a voter to change their mind, or your words that make me change my mind and that should never be taken away from us. The entire BCRA is a bad joke and the joke is on us, the American people.

 

 

"
Comments
on Sep 06, 2007
Excellent article MM.
on Sep 06, 2007
thank you terp.. high praise is better than a feature, since I am now going in my third month with no feature, july 7th last feature for me.
on Sep 07, 2007
I agree completely.  I have said since day one that it was a violation of the Constitution, and one of the areas that I disagree with Bush (among Many).  But as I also suspected, money is a very powerful errosive agent.  When dammed, it will eventually find a way around the obsticle.  Thus we have the 527s.  The democrats were fast out of the gate to exploit them, but the republicans caught up and some say passed them in 2004.  We hear constantly (because Kerry cant let it go) of Swiftboat.  But we dont hear as often about the others like moveon.org in the same vein.  But then what would one suspect from the "unbiased" MSM?
on Sep 07, 2007

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Friday, September 07, 2007
I agree completely. I have said since day one that it was a violation of the Constitution, and one of the areas that I disagree with Bush (among Many). But as I also suspected, money is a very powerful errosive agent. When dammed, it will eventually find a way around the obsticle. Thus we have the 527s. The democrats were fast out of the gate to exploit them, but the republicans caught up and some say passed them in 2004. We hear constantly (because Kerry cant let it go) of Swiftboat. But we dont hear as often about the others like moveon.org in the same vein. But then what would one suspect from the "unbiased" MSM

We are never going to get real News from the MSM, it will always be slanted left when the story is political in nature. As for hanoijohn, I think he did get a raw deal in 2004 truly he was swift boated, he did serve when many young folk were running for the border to Canada or running to the national guard to avoid combat, for that I honor Hanoijohn. Do I care he was wronged? nope! fuck the traitorous bastage!

on Sep 07, 2007

As for hanoijohn, I think he did get a raw deal in 2004 truly he was swift boated, he did serve when many young folk were running for the border to Canada or running to the national guard to avoid combat, for that I honor Hanoijohn.

No one, not even the Swiftboat 527 alleged he did not serve, or that he did so dishonorably.  The contention has always been that he embellished his war record, and they called him to task for his embellishments (Cambodia 1968 - Nixon's fault as well?).  I dare say that anyone could have run a mack truck through the holes in his lies.  But instead of anybody, it was some of his fellow servicemen that called him on his lies.  Thus Swiftboating I guess means to call someone on their lies in front of a national audience.

on Sep 07, 2007
(Citizen)Dr GuySeptember 7, 2007 11:52:11


As for hanoijohn, I think he did get a raw deal in 2004 truly he was swift boated, he did serve when many young folk were running for the border to Canada or running to the national guard to avoid combat, for that I honor Hanoijohn.

No one, not even the Swiftboat 527 alleged he did not serve, or that he did so dishonorably. The contention has always been that he embellished his war record, and they called him to task for his embellishments (Cambodia 1968 - Nixon's fault as well?). I dare say that anyone could have run a mack truck through the holes in his lies. But instead of anybody, it was some of his fellow servicemen that called him on his lies. Thus Swiftboating I guess means to call someone on their lies in front of a national audience.


Oh I agree that Hanoijohn did some stretching of facts to look better, some of it I put to the FOG OF WAR, it happens to most everyone that serves in combat, some things and events get confused, but the Idea of Hanoijohn as President made me switch parties docG remember? as a man he disgusts me, as a 'hero' he is a real bad example. John McCain, now that man is a hero! even though I do not like the man personally or like his politics. Hanoijohn is done in politics, he will NEVER RISE higher than his present office, as Senator.