Court allows issue ads near elections

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON - The 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, in upholding 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 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.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campaign_finance;_

[cureautismnow]

1. Shouldn't Alito and Roberts have recused themselves?

"...urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees."

[Kagemusha]

2. Grounds would be too weak IMHO.

There are much stronger cases for recusal. Though in any event, Scalia has proven that recusal is a voluntary process only, bleh

[Bacchus39]

8. why?

n/t

[cureautismnow]

9. The ad proponents were clearly supporting Alito and Roberts.

Why should Alito and Roberts be allowed to decide the ad-makers fate? It's hardly surprising that Roberts and Alito would be sympathetic to the ad proponents cause, which just happens to be Alito and Roberts own employment on the bench. Just seems like a circular conflict of interest to me.

[jefferson_dem]

3. Court loosens limits on election ads

Source: AP

Court loosens limits on election ads
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

The 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 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.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campaign_finance&printer=1;_ylt=ArYCO77IE03ITvzvsjbN8YlAw_IE

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Somebody start the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Party

More free speech for corporations, less for students.

We don't just need that party, soon we will need those bong hits, too.

--p!

[Miss Chybil]

5. And if it had been a Moveon ad, things might have turned out differently... nt

[zulchzulu]

6. Just imagine what this means for the fall of 2008...

Look for Swiftboat ads on steroids that pretty much overtake any real issue-oriented ads. Get your mudslinging shield at Home Depot, aisle three, in the garbage dumpster section.

[FormerDittoHead]

7. What *I* am concerned about is CORPORATIONS *DEDUCTING* these as "advertising expense"...

...whilst political spending of ANY KIND is *NOT* tax deductable, this COULD be a loophole big enough to fly a 777 through...

[walnutpie]

10. Divorcing one's self from the content

If you divorce yourself from the content, MORE freedom of speech is better than less freedom speech.

[Josh]

11. Here in Australia there is an enforced media blackout four days before any election -

You are not allowed to go on the air with ANYTHING. No issue ads, no campaign ads, NOTHING. Four days of clean airwaves before Election Day (which is a Saturday, and voting is compulsory) in which the voters can decide for themselves.

[robcon]

18. The Australian system would be unconstitutional in the U.S.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

[Josh]

20. We don't have a Bill of Rights -

or a codified freedom of speech, only an implied one.

Still, it's nice when they shut off the bullshit in the week leading up to the election. :)

[Omaha Steve]

12. 5-4 Supreme Court Weakens Curbs on Pre-Election TV Ads

Source: Washington Post

5-4 Supreme Court Weakens Curbs on Pre-Election TV Ads
Ruling on McCain-Feingold Law Opens Door for Interest Groups in '08

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 26, 2007; Page A01

The Supreme Court yesterday substantially weakened restrictions on the kinds of television ads that corporations and unions can finance in the days before an election, providing special interest groups with the opportunity for a far more expansive role in the 2008 elections.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the 5 to 4 decision, saying the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act's prohibition against the use of a candidate's name in such ads in the days before an election was an unconstitutional infringement on the groups' rights to advocate on issues.


Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., shown in September 2006, wrote in yesterday's 5 to 4 ruling that "discussion of issues cannot be suppressed." (By Chris Greenberg -- Bloomberg News)

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

It was a rare decision that united the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO in praise -- it is unlikely that the groups will use the court's more lenient standards to advocate for the same causes.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500548.html?sub=AR

[Auggie]

13. Stand back, because the B.S. is going to fly

[rwheeler31]

14. The dems will need more money

because of this decision.

[robcon]

15. Political speech is free, by the first amendment

The first amendment primarily requires no law to be enacted that restricts political speech. I fully support also reducing restrictions on creative arts, pornography, and freedom of assembly.

It is even MORE important that political action groups (pro-choice, pro-life or whatever) be able to mention candidates in their STRICTLY political speech. Either we believe in the first amendment, or we change it. The first amendment lets anyone say (almost) anything of a political nature. The restrictions on free political speech of McCain-Feingold are unconstitutional.

I think the Supreme Court ruled correctly in this case.

[Big Pappa]

17. I agree

It becomes a very dangerous place when you are told to shut your mouth about a candidate. How dare these assholes who claim to be "public" servants think that they are somehow above criticism 60 days before an election.

[MasonJar]

16. The Conservatives got the justices they wanted. Thanks to the

Fallible Five Rogue justices.

[robcon]

19. It's astonishing to me that 4 SC justices felt the 1st amendment

didn't really mean freedom of political speech. Those four seem to be saying the plain meaning of the first amendment of the Constitution is somehow not: Congress shall pass no law restricting political speech.

It would take another amendment of the constitution, IMO, not just a law, to restrict political speech during the last 60 days of an election - or at any time.