John McCain douche-baggery

[ebranig]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the real shame is that it appears to be an unconstitutional limitation of freedom of speech, and an abridgement of the First Amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have missed an important and elementary point:

[ QUOTE ]
and the announcement of the Supreme Court decision upholding the soft money ban.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Supreme court has ruled that M-F is not unconstitutional.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
The Supreme court has ruled that M-F is not unconstitutional.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because the Supreme Court never, ever gets anything wrong. And only retards would question a Supreme Court's decision's correctness.

Come on.

Will

[MMMMMM]

The soft money ban may not be unconstitutional, but a part of McCain-Feingold (the Snowe-Jeffords amendment) clearly is unconstitutional: it is a ban on advertising on radio or TV, which is a clear abridgement of free speech and freedom of the press, which is PRECISELY what the First Amendment forbids:

(excerpt)"Under the bill, labor unions and for-profit corporations would be prohibited from spending their treasury funds on "electioneering communications." "Electioneering communications" are defined as radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates and appear within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.(end excerpt)

http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/l...on/mccain.html


FIRST AMENDMENT:

"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."

Now, can someone please explain how prohibition of advertising on radio and TV is not an abridgement of free speech or of freedom of the press? Somehow, I don't think anyone will be able to explain this--because it clearly is.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, can someone please explain how prohibition of advertising on radio and TV is not an abridgement of free speech or of freedom of the press? Somehow, I don't think anyone will be able to explain this--because it clearly is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still cannot believe the Supreme Court upheld this. It should have been 9-0 to strike this down.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I still cannot believe the Supreme Court upheld this. It should have been 9-0 to strike this down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Checks and balances don't mean very much when an entity (the Federal Government) is checking and balancing itself.