Supreme Court Rules Against Campaign Finance Reform

The Supreme Court ruled against one of the provisions in the 2002 campaign finance reform act yesterday, in another narrow 5-4 ruling.

The provision had banned corporations from paying for political "issue ads" that mentioned a candidate for federal office within 60 days of a federal election and 30 days of a primary or caucus.

[T]he court eased legal barriers aimed at corporate- and union-financed television ads, a decision whose tone suggests greater hostility on the court to federal limitations on money in politics.

The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that a Wisconsin 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.

The ruling is expected to open the door to more challenges against restrictions on "soft money" in politics. Speaking of soft money--Fred Thompson and Philip Morris. Read all about it.

Comments (5) «

It is apparent that the supreme's know which side their bread is buttered. The Robert's court is very slowly picking up steam to roll over the constitution in the name conservatism.

This decision is bad for democracy and will enable the unbalanced slant upon our government, which is induced by corporate America.

1

davidual on June 26, 2007 at 02:06 PM

Just means more negative ad from a group of repugnant x-tian reich that do nothing, know nothing, bunch of cronies stealing money from the government coffer!

2

HybridFuel on June 26, 2007 at 03:29 PM

So is MoveOn and other groups free to tell the public the truth or do liberal action groups have to abide by a different set of rules than the American Taliban and its multinational corporate arm?

3

SandyH on June 26, 2007 at 04:13 PM

Hey, let's not forget that the Democratic Party vote split evenly for and against Roberts. Good job!

4

TheObvious on June 26, 2007 at 06:08 PM

who do we have to blame for this??? let's not point the finger at the other side, but at ourselves for not having the cajones to filibuster these known to be crazy lifetime appointment SC justices. if there was ever a time to stand up, it was for LIFETIME appointments.

5

jimmyc451 on June 27, 2007 at 09:07 AM

« Hide Comments

Comments are now closed for this entry.