McCain's Hard Money goes to court, ironically by the RNC itself

KillerMuffin

Seraphically Disinclined
Joined
Jul 29, 2000
Posts
25,603
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=930733

By John Whitesides

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican Party, the California Democratic Party and a coalition of voters' rights groups filed separate legal challenges on Tuesday to a new campaign finance law designed to restrict the influence of money in politics.

[snip]

Meeting a court-imposed deadline to add their lawsuits to challenges already filed by more than two dozen groups, the new plaintiffs said the measure violated the Constitution's guarantees of free speech and equal protection.

[snip]

The lawsuit by voters' rights groups challenges the law's increase in limits for regulated "hard-money" donations, which can be spent directly on campaigns, claiming it violates the Constitution's equal protection clause by denying meaningful participation in the political process to Americans who are not wealthy.

The law doubles the cap on individual contributions to $2,000 and indexes further increases to inflation. "Doubling the hard-money limits will further drown out the voice of average, non-wealthy citizens," said Adam Lioz of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

[snip]

The Republican complaint also alleges the law overrides the authority of states to regulate the financing of state and local elections. Republican plaintiffs are the Republican National Committee, the state parties of Colorado, New Mexico and Ohio, and the Dallas County, Iowa, Republican committee.

Among the voters' rights groups challenging the hard-money increase are the National Voting Rights Institute, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group and nearly a dozen individual voters or prospective candidates.

Their challenge also takes aim at the so-called millionaire's amendment added during Senate debate last year that grants an increase in contribution limits to candidates facing wealthy, self-financed opponents.

Stephanie Wilson, director of the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, a civil rights group advocating campaign finance reform, likened the hard-money limit increases to "a modern-day poll tax" that would hinder political participation by the poor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think?
 
Campaign finance as currently written is a violation of free speech. The limits on when ads can be placed and on who can place them are set up to give incumbants an unfair advantage.
 
KillerMuffin said:
What do you think?

As far as I can tell, this is an unconstitutional law. Money equals Speech, or so the Supreme Court has held in previous cases. It was a stupid and futile attempt to reign in the "excesses" of money in politics that wasted the time of our elected officials and insulted us in that those same officials have attempted to wrest away yet another freedom.

It's true that money is a problem in politics, but that's not the fault of the people with the money. They're doing what has always worked in National Politics and are representing their own members to do it (and lest you think that it's an elite group of "special intereests, think again. Everyone, in some form or another, is being represented by a "special interest group". It's the fault of the corrupt politicians who are in office, and in the voters who consistently put them there.
 
well put jazz, however I might take exception with the "and in the voters who consistently put them there." part. I firmly believe that the LACK of voting is has been created by a general apathy, thusly enhansing a smart politicians ability to be deceitful. Was it not Stom Thurman that said "the first rule of politics is to get elected, and the second rule is to get re-elected" Notice no mention of being honorable.

Now to the real point at hand, bottom line, yes the law as it is currently written is a violation of free speech. The question I am going to raise is is that really enough for it to be stopped? Are not speed limits a violation of free speech? What about gun laws? Or is it ok to spill a little constitutional milk to protect society as a whole? simply food for thought...
 
Back
Top