Supremes Rule AGAINST McCain-Feingold

The U.S. Supreme Court handed Wisconsin Right to Life a victory.

It has to bug liberals that a group promoting the Culture of Life has scored a win.

All those self-proclaimed lib elite sophisticates supposedly in favor of any and all free speech must be disappointed that the First Amendment rights of a group like Wisconsin Right to Life are protected, too.

The "free speech for some (libs)" crowd must be foaming at the mouth.

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

FOUR justices were in favor of limiting the First Amendment rights of Wisconsin Right to Life.

FOUR justices argued against the First Amendment.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.

The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.

Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.

True, Roberts and those "conservative allies" actually believe in upholding that inalienable right of liberty.

How dangerous!

Give me a break.

...On Monday, Justice David Souter, joined by his three liberal colleagues, said in his dissent that the court "effectively and, unjustifiably, overruled" the earlier decision.

The ads could have been run, Souter pointed out, had they been paid for out of the group's political action committee, which is subject to federal campaign finance limits. Or Feingold's name could have been omitted, he said.

"Thus, what is called a 'ban' on speech is a limit on the financing of electioneering broadcasts by entities...that insist on acting as conduits from the campaign war chests of business corporations," Souter said.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens joined Souter's dissent.

Translation: The libs on the Court put the lame McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act ahead of the First Amendment.

The Bush administration urged the court to ban the ads, arguing that they were meant to influence the elections, not lobby the senators.

To those claiming that I blindly agree with any stance taken by the Bush administration: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SHOULD NOT HAVE URGED THE COURT TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH.

But Roberts said, "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

I love that.


"Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."


Spoken like a true patriot.

Feingold, constant whiner about the PATRIOT act trampling on civil liberties, is the censor.
_____________________

Read the decision here.

Read it and weep Russ Feingold and John McCain.
_____________________

Read the press release from Wisconsin Right to Life.

VICTORY!
_______________________

McCain reacts.

“It is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election,” McCain said. “It is important to recognize, however, that the Court’s decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns.”

Waiting for Feingold to comment...