NEWS: Supreme Court Skeptically Reviews McCain-Feingold

POLITICS: Supreme Court Skeptically Reviews McCain-Feingold

Oral arguments concerning a key feature of the election reform law known as “McCain-Feingold” were held this week at the Supreme Court.

McCain-Feingold, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, enjoys enthusiastic support from a broad percentage of the public and enthusiastic disdain from an even broader array of political advocacy organizations. The Act, among other things, limits the amount of money an individual can contribute to any one person’s campaign and imposes stringent reporting requirements on candidates and political advocacy groups.

While many contend the act violates the First Amendment because it regulates legitimate political expression, it was found facially Constitutional back in 2003 by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). In McConnell, Justice O’Connor with Justice Stevens wrote:

However, the Court’s composition has changed since 2003. O’Connor, a moderate, has been replaced by arch-conservative Samuel Alito. So when Alito and co. got a chance to review a specific provision of McCain-Feingold, they jumped at it.

Uh oh. And judging by the way the oral arguments went on Wednesday, it seems supporters of the law might have reason to worry. The McConnell decision was a 5-4 vote. Three dissenters (Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy) are still on the Court and the Fourth (Rehnquist) has been effectively replaced by Chief Justice Roberts. That leaves all eyes on Alito, who remained quiet as to his intentions during oral arguments until he wheeled on an attorney defending the law.

If the Court finds that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional as applied to the regulation of the Wisconsin anti-abortion group’s ads, the law will lose much of its effect. Essentially, it could allow political advocacy groups to broadcast “issue ads” specifically targeting candidates up for election so long as they do not come out and say “vote for the other guy.” It would be a hole in the law that would be even bigger than the one the Swift Boat fuckers exploited to smear John Kerry.

The decision will be handed down in a few months. Just in time for the 2008 primaries.

Subrosa will bet you a fiver that if this loophole in McCain-Feingold is blown open that John McCain and his supporters will take advantage of it more than will any other candidate.

eroding mccain-feingold makes me a little sick.

i've been saying for years that candidates for the presidency (and congress) shouldn't be allowed to take any money to run their campaigns. they should run them just like fourth grade student council--each candidate is given a pack of markers and some poster board.

lol Unfortunately, that is all I used in high school, and it didn't work

Based on the tone of the article, are you implying only conservatives will stoop so low?

Though I agree in principal, no matter what sort of fanciful idea I invent in my head, I soon enough realize it won't work. "Money, like water, will always find an outlet." And people addicted to power - people of all political stripes - will always find a way around the rules so as to get their fix.

Great. What may have been the most vicious Democratic primary in recent history, will be even more vicious.

I'm no legal scholar, but - at first blush - I share Alito's discomfort over Waxman relying on "context" to determine if an ad is addressing an issue where legislators stances are "well known." Unregulated money all over the place in an election isn't good for democracy at all - it obviously gives a great deal more voice to those with the deepest pockets. But I dunno what the proper standard for silencing some people is at all.

I don't even know how a law like this can survive in the internet age.

How the hell is it "impractical"? Can't they just require the ads to specifically mention the Congressional vote? I think it just pisses them off because then they can no longer obfuscate their real agenda. This is a good law: it affects both sides equally. They are both hurt and helped equally, and it allows us to pay more attention to the specific messages of the candidates and not other's interpretations come the very important election time.

And in response to bean's concerns. I see it like this. It denies certain groups names from being associated with candidates in ads close to the election. Given the increased lengths of electioneering these days, they have more than enough time to come out and state their positions, again, leaving that time right before the election open to the more important views of the candidates themselves.

You mean like the swift-boat guys? I guess the difference is that one is about issues (I might be contradicting myself here), while the other is about groups backing specific candidates. For example, if the AFL-CIO came out with a commercial supporting Obama. In this case, the commercial is more about who the AFL-CIO is endorsing rather than the candidate even if it is shaded that way. With the rule, any money the AFL-CIO gave towards a PAC making a commercial their name wouldn't be mentioned and the commercial would be more about an issue. I dunno, it's a slight distinction, but I think a necessary one. Endorsements should be long established before the elections.

[edited x 2]

Never mind, I think I might be misunderstanding something here. 'Cause what I just said is exactly what you're saying is still allowed right? If that's the case, I think that exception should be removed, to uphold the general principle, if there even is a principle.

Oh, fuck it. I say we just print our ballots on hundred dollar bills and do the fuck away with elections.

They're a pain in the ass anyway.

No, I was implying that John McCain has no principles.

lol... I'd put the good money on Clinton.

Fair enough, but you can guarantee they'll put pressure on groups to run negative adds, no?

It is a travesty that our free market economy results in candidates having to raise millions to pay millions for their own "messages". In England all candidates are allotted a certain abt of television and radio time, and printed ad space. I wonder if special interest groups are allotted their bit of time and space to slam candidates?

I have to feel democrats are always going to suffer most from this law being neutered, bc of all of the republican corporate glut

Fair enough.

Everyone will take advantage of it. The more money one person spends, the more money everyone else will spend to keep up. If the other guy's spending a gazillion dollars to get his message out, you're probably not going to decide to go thrifty in order to make a statement about the undue influence of money in elections, because you don't make much of a statement at all when your campaign falls flat on its face--and your campaign will tend to fall flat on its face when you don't have the funds to compete with your opponent.

Because money so influences campaigns and elections, candidates continue to have to raise and spend astronomical amounts of money to compete with one another, which only serves to increase the influence of money in campaigns and elections. It doesn't matter what party you're with; you'll take all the money you can get because you can do more with more money, and it's often one of the quicker routes to failure to be outspent by your opponent.

lol... Of course, I was just teasing. I'm really bad at this sarcasm thing. I wasn't seriously implying that Clinton would be the only one, just like I don't think Subrosa would seriously argue that McCain would be the only one to use it (or use it more than others for that matter). Of course, I could be wrong. I won't presume to put words in Subrosa's mouth.

I be bad joke maker.

Obama would agree with you, as would I. The simple fact of the matter is: politicians need money, "corporate types" have it.

I'd really appreciate it if you could send some corporate glut my way.

It's not that I think you didn't know that, really. It's that I wanted to lament the obvious.

Oh well, it's a good thing I didn't call Captain Obvious.

Laws like McCain-Feingold will never make any difference in controlling greed and corruption in government because the very lawmakers that implement the laws do their level best to ferret out the loopholes in the laws and exploit them. Politicians in Congress are not there to make America a better place. They are there for the betterment of there own lives and the lives of their own immediate families and definitely those of their corporate political campaign donors. Greed and graft are not the exclusive realm of any one party. McCain-Feingold didn't do anything to keep the Republican majority from being tossed out on their asses in the 2006 elections, and won't do anything to keep the Democrats in power should they fail to improve on the horrific performance of their colleagues now in the minority. I believe that the sad truth is that is doesn't make a gnat's eyelash of a difference which set of thieves holds the gavel of the Speaker of the House, the leadership in the Senate, or the desk in the Oval Office. Until term limits for Congressmen and Senators are passed, and ballot access is granted to third party candidates, the self perpetuating Evil that is our Government will continue to cannibalize our society and render laws like McCain-Feingold meaningless. As for the Supreme Court, its collective opinion has always shifted with the political tide. When the next Democrat eventually inherits the Presidency, the tide will again shift to the left, (or center depending on your perspective.) Finally, as much as it pains me to do so, cuz he's so mean to me and makes me cry, I agree with Subrosa that John McCain has no principles.

Is every one as cynical as this guy^ these days? I mean yeah, there's always going to be corruption. Did you ever play Civilization? The point is to minimize it. In comparison to other countries, I think we're doing a good job. Does that mean I'm satisfied? Of course not. We can always better ourselves. I'm just getting sick of defeatist sentiment.

**Back to our regularly scheduled programming**