by Forgiven, Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:53:28 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court loosened political advertising restrictions aimed at corporate- and union-funded television ads Monday, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
The court's 5-4 ruling could become a significant factor in the upcoming presidential primaries, giving interest groups a louder and more influential voice in the closing days before those contests as well as the general election.
The decision 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 law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.
''Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,'' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. ''Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.''
The New York Times
by RDemocrat, Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 09:01:37 PM EDT
One thing you can say about Mitch McConnell is that he has been consistent. Consistently blocking Progressive change in any form in our country. One change he consistently blocks is that of election reform and taking the money out of the process. He believes big money interests are exercising their "First Amendment rights" to give him big money. Look at his warchest and some of the contributing interests:
Attorneys & law firms $390,848
Security brokers & investment companies $234,949
Commercial banks & bank holding companies $168,550
Coal mining $108,600
What about all the railing against trial lawyers? I guess he isn't talking about the ones who are sending 400 grand. It looks to me as if McConnell is beholden to the big money interests and status-quo as long as he holds his office. Not to mention his shameless pandering to President Bush and refusal to show any kind of leadership whatsoever within his own party.
It is time to send Mitch McConnell home. I repeat my call to anyone in Kentucky who can run against McConnell to step up and heip us start unseating the biggest obstacle to Progressive change in the Senate!!
Any Democrat- Ky Senate 08!!!
by alicescheshirecat, Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 07:40:11 AM EDT
Last night I had an exciting opportunity to join an org called Forward Montana for their latest forum The Naked Truth. A unique thing about Forward Montana is as a membership organization they poll their members for what issues or candidates etc.. that they are interested in. What gets them all hot and bothered? And one of the major things that their membership wanted FMT to address was this idea about corruption in politics.
So the Naked Truth brought together David Sirota best selling author of Hostile Takeover, David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund, and state Rep. Diane Sands who is leading the charge for publicly financed campaigns for elected judges in Montana.
And let me tell you it was some hot naked truth!
by George Nassar, Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:22:58 AM EDT
Crossposted at The Texas Blue
I love the idea of public campaign financing. I love the idea of making the candidate process accessible to anyone regardless of income, and I think it would be great if our elected officials could be less beholden to big-money interests. But let's be honest — the only way public financing would work is if it were mandatory, so everyone would have to play by the same rules. Otherwise, those with ties to those big-money interests could simply bypass public financing and raise much more than a public system would ever be able to provide. And mandatory public financing is a tough sell to people who were elected by and whose incumbent advantage largely relies on the system as it stands now. It will be a very long time before we see that happen, if at all. And voluntary public financing is simply not viable.
Or is it?
by GlenCoco, Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:30:51 AM EST
I came across this story today and it just made me flinch. Call me naive, or a purest, but if you can read this and think there is nothing wrong with it, then forever hold your peace on the shady dealings of all candidates -- Dems or Republicans. Perhaps this is the price of entry, and obviously running for President is not for the faint of heart. But if campaign finance reform can't do anything about deals like this, why even bother?