(Supreme) Court OKs special-interest "issue ads" close to elections

[AlGore-08.com]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003761691_webscowcampaign25.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court loosened restrictions today 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.

(more... )

[aquart]

1. I know they'll burn in hell.

I just hate to wait.

[napi21]

2. I can only HOPE that the Liberal Groups use this ruling to THEIR

advantage too! I know when I heard the issue read on CNN, they specifically mentioned unions, and ALL soecial interest groups. That's OK! From a purely personal point of view, I PREFER not hearing those kind of ads ANYTIME, and I was happy that they were shut down for at least 1 or 2 months, but as long as the ruling doesn't favor one side or the other, LET THE FIGHTING ADS BEGIN!

[Mz Pip]

3. This can work in our favor, too.

The RW isn't the only group capable of issue ads.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[napi21]

4. YES, and at least SOME of our groups are braver than the whimps

in Washington!

[welshTerrier2]

5. this may or may NOT affect corporations

the article's author concluded that restrictions were loosened on "corporate- and union-funded television ads. McCain-Feingold restricted these ads within 60 days of an election. but the article indicates the plaintiff in the case was an anti-abortion group. I haven't read the actual decision but the article does NOT present sufficient evidence to conclude that the decision automatically extends to restrictions on corporations.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. this one doesn't surprise me at all

I've said for years that a constitutional amendment would be required for these types of restrictions, not just legislation.