McCain-Feingold

[tombogan03884]

Posted by David Kopel:
Justice Stevens Loves the NRA:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252521881


   At least today he did. This morning the Court heard reargument in
   Citizens United v. FEC. At issue is section 203 of the McCain-Feingold
   campaign speech restriction law, which prohibits corporations and
   unions from buying TV ads (and communicating in certain other media)
   which mention a federal candidate during the 60 days before a general
   election, and the 30 days before a primary. During oral argument last
   spring, the government had asserted that it would be constitutionally
   permissible for Congress to outlaw corporate/union speech in any
   medium (e.g., a book) during the pre-election speech restriction
   period.
   The Court asked for re-argument and supplement briefing on whether it
   should over-rule the relevant part of McConnell v. FEC (2003)(which
   had upheld McCain-Feingold) and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
   (1990)(corporate speech can be suppressed in order to relatively
   amplify other voices).
   Scotusblog provides a [1]summary and analysis from Scotusblog. As
   Scotusblog explains, the Court seemed unanimous that the relevant
   portion of McCain-Feingold was constitutionally defective, and the
   question was whether the Court could address the problem in a narrow
   way, while preserving some of the precedents in question.
   The [2]NRA brief had argued that the Court should over-rule
   Austin/McConnell to the extent that they ban advocacy by non-profit
   corporations funded by individuals, or the Court should over-rule both
   cases as applied to all corporations. Justice Stevens liked the NRA's
   first alternative. However, it appeared that five Justices wanted to
   go further.
   The briefs are [3]here. Among them are briefs from two other groups
   which made me proud to be a member: [4]Cato Institute (focus on right
   of association, and anonymity); [5]Cato supplemental brief (stare
   decisis principles support over-ruling Austin and part of McConnell,
   and returning to the 1976 Buckley precedent); ACLU Supplemental (the
   Court should find section 203 of McCain-Feingold facially
   unconstitutional; this would over-rule part of McConnell, and would
   not require the Court to over-rule Austin).

References

   1. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-two-precedents-in-jeopardy/#more-10669
   2. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_AppellantAmCuNRASupp.pdf
   3. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/sept09.shtml#citizens
   4. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_AppellantAmCuCATOInst.pdf
   5. http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-205_AppellantAmCuCATOInstSupp.pdf

[twyacht]

the Court seemed unanimous that the relevant
   portion of McCain-Feingold was constitutionally defective,

As was the authors of the bill....

Another brilliant move by a RINO and a Liberal Idiot, exemplifying bi-partisanship.....

I'll be much better after I throw up,....