Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Democrats Blast Supreme Court Rule, John McCain: I’m Disappointed

January 27, 2010 by  

Democrats blast Supreme Court rule, John McCain: I'm disappointed  The Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 21 that campaign finance laws should be relaxed to reflect constitutional rights to free speech. However, the decision was strongly criticized by liberal politicians, and even John McCain expressed his disapproval.

The ruling in Citizens v. Federal Election Commission eases the limits on corporate campaign donations, in practice allowing businesses, unions and advocacy groups to air political ads, according to media reports.

Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that the decision reflects the majority’s belief that government’s regulation of who provides information to citizens violates the First Amendment.

However, Representative Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) said the ruling is "an affront" to his constituents and added that "people have constitutional rights, not corporations," quoted by Green Bay Press Gazette.

Top Democratic leaders in Washington have also expressed their dismay, warning that the ruling will cause corporate money to flood politics, create greater corruption and erode democracy and free elections by promoting special interests.

Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Tim Kaine confirmed the administration is preparing a "forceful response" to the Supreme Court’s decision that he said "must not be allowed to stand."

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain, (R-Ariz.), declared himself disappointed with the ruling that weakens the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 he co-sponsored.

The act banned unregulated contributions to national political parties, outlawed advocacy ads in the 60 days before an election, limited contributions and required donor disclosure.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19574277-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Democrats Blast Supreme Court Rule, John McCain: I’m Disappointed”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Harold Olsen

    “…the decision was strongly criticized by liberal politicians, and even John McCain expressed his disapproval.”?? Shouldn’t that read “…criticized by liberal politicians INCLUDING John McCain…”?? He sure as heck is not a conservative no matter how much he may try to make us believe he is. He is one of them and his record proves it. A liberal pretending to be a conservative and I’m convince he is a closet Democrat. I would have been surprised if he HAD NOT criticized this decision. I notice that the left objects to corporate donations but they’re not bothered by unions making donations. Gee! I wonder why.

    • eyewideopen

      Funny, while McCain was trying to get this campaign reform done, it was something that I respected him for doing. He recognizes that both parties can and will abuse the electorial process by taking monies from special interest groups, no longer representing the citizens, but instead the corporations. Say hello to The United Corporations of America. Until money is taken out of the process, corruption will be entrenched in the Congress. How does a corporation get the same individual rights as each of us have? Don’t see that in Constitution.

      • James

        eyewideopen, You don’t see that in the Constitution because every American has rights – whether they are the CEO in a corporation or a bum on the street. We now have a conservative Superme Court that is returning to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law respecting”, that’s what it says and that’s what it means.

      • Arkham Grundy

        Now, thanks to the Supreme Court, the richest Corporations will control elections. Politicians will become even more solidly creatures of those who bought them.

        • DaveH

          Arkham,
          Are you saying the voters are too ignorant to make up their own minds? Will they be like zombies and do as told by the ads? Well, maybe the Liberals might.

        • jane

          Funny you obviously oppose corporations but do NOT mention the graft ridden and corrupt unions….

      • Tinwarble

        Eyes,

        Actually the court ruling doesn’t allow the corporations & unions to give to campaigns, it only allows them to run ads. And if you look at the numbers, corporations are almost split equally in who they give to, with about 51% to Republicans and about 49% to Democrats. Unlike the Unions which give almost 92% to Democrats.

        Also the 1st Amendment, which states:

        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.;

        does not distinguish between a single person or a corporation or union and either the “freedom of speech” applies to everyone or to no one. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that businesses are excluded from the 1st Amendment.

        • Jeff

          Furthermore, federal law and most (if not all) state laws define a “person” as including a corporation. When fed/state law wants to refer to an individual person, they use the term “individual.” So the definition of person is not one individual person.

      • Dave

        I would certainly include John McCain as one of those liberals who only count companies as non citizens but then take union money and unions as we all know are companies who are paid agents. The side I take issue with is that politicians can simply tax you and use your money to campaign for themselves. I think a more fair law would be no government paid campaign money.

      • GRusling

        It’s simple… A corporation is simply a like-minded group of “Individuals” acting in concert. Just because we may not like their point of view doesn’t make it invalid. Everything from how they invest their money to how they spend their profit is “THEIR” business, not ours, and it allows the many relatively poor “Individuals” to come together and challenge some “Billionaire” like George Soros.

        Freedom can sometime be inconvenient but it definitely is constitutional, and the USSC got it right this time…

  • http://personalliberty Bob Galiley

    eyewideopen – I hope you are not impying that the parties don’t take the money already and that this changes that. The McCain reforms only prevented ME from being able to advertise. Grass roots and smaller groups were prohibited from any pertinent advertizing near an election – how was that constitutional? Corporations are not citizens but the board of directors are and why can’t they support the candidate(s) that support them? If the stockholders don’t like it they can boot them out (not like the union leaders that have been donating members money contrary to the wishes of the rank and file(s) for years).

    • Dr. Dennis G. Crump

      Just wondering if you ever served aboard a certain submarine (H L Stimson).

  • http://bobbynorwood@hotmail.com Bobby Norwood

    I BELIEVE THAT WE NED TO REPLACE 85% OF THE POLITICIANS IN OFFICE TODAY. WE NEED THOSE THAT WILL MAKE INTO LAW TERM LIMITS FOR ALL. SO AS THEY DON’T HAE TIME TO GET MONEY HUNGRY NOR FORGET WHO WE ARE.
    BOBBY NORWOOD

    • http://SMJRWARNER@SBCGLOBAL.NET JOHN R WARNER

      yOU ARE RIGHT
      vOTE THEM OUT
      fINE THEM
      A CHANGE IS NECESSARY FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY
      JOHN R WARNER

  • Robert

    I believe the media are the ones most upset by the ruling. Let’s see, a newspaper or TV or Cable network can endorse a candidate, cover them with all sorts of positive reporting and basically have total freedom to be biased for one of their chosen parties. And, ta da, no government restrictions or limitations. These are corporations aren’t they? So the Supreme Court seems to have just leveled the playing field. In any event, big business owns all the lackies in Washington. And that includes the media. What I find disturbing in this ruling is that the court didn’t seem to care that there are still limits on what an American Citizen/Voter/Taxpayer can contribute. I guess we just don’t count.

    • DaveH

      Thanks for pointing that out Robert. The Campaign Finance Reform Act gave the Media much more power to steer elections.

  • http://victorbarney@embarqmail.com Victor L Barney

    This must HURT the “Progressive agenda” if even McCain is against it!

  • Warrior

    Now we can really see who is supporting whom and I think that’s a good thing.

  • Nancy

    It gives one more reason to support J.D. Hayworth in AZ, who
    is running against McCain.

  • Eyes within

    Wow, Its clear the citizen of America’s voice will be much more eliminated now, While the Corporations throughout all foreign and none foreign weather their are terrorism involvements of funds given within these corporations now given the rights to buy their way into America’s corp world legally by purchasing those votes into their direction to now control more so. Look out average citizens of America you have been sold, by your so called own!!!

    • Warrior

      Well, instead of giving campaign contributions which not many americans are interested nor have the time to pour through the records, we will see which organizations and corporations are backing whom via media ads. Media loves this. Hopefully most people will be able to decipher message to obtain clearer picture of special interest and their candidates.

      • Eyes within

        It is 100% accurate at this point, Your & mine and every average Americans voice is a wasted cause at this point to think you as the American citizen has any right or voice from this day forward with this sell out of the supreme court whom claims to be for the people, And hold the constitution in place is crap… Wake up folks you have been sold to the biggest greediest none caring corporations you can imagine.

      • Harold Olsen

        It won’t be that easy. Corporations have a tendency to try to cover their butts by contributing to both parties. That way, whoever wins corporations can say they supported them. They may be covering their butts but I call it cowardice.

    • DaveH

      At least the Corporations would be “buying” the votes with their own money, unlike Obama and crew who are buying the votes with taxpayer money.

    • Tinwarble

      And what do you think has been going on with all the 501′s & 527 groups? At least now there might be more transparency and we’ll know who is supporting whom instead of everyone hiding behind the black veils of a non-profit, tax exempt group.

      • eyeswideopen

        Tin, you are correct. The 527′s and others are hiding who they are funded by. Good catch!

  • Dee

    Does anyone know where all of ‘Obama’s’ campaign money came from yet? Geez, after Obama took OFF his disclosure notice, from his website, all of a sudden TONS of money came pouring in..even from Mickey Mouse & other ‘characters’ …I believe that the ‘under-handed, illegal’ donations for his Campaign have now come to a ‘screaching halt’!! That’s why the ‘Liberal Left’ doesn’t like this decision… NOW, WE can see where all the ‘MILLIONS’ come from to support Candidates … Seems fair to me!!.. I would STILL like to know WHERE all of his campaign money REALLY came from … foreign countries, corporations, Unions,…where?? The ‘playing-field’ is LEVELED…

    • Harold Olsen

      I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Obama’s money came from terrorist countries such as Iran and possibly from his buddies like Hugo Chavez. Maybe even the Chinese bought him, just like they did Clinton.

      • eyeswideopen

        Harold, and the only honest party is the Republicans?? Must be tuff being so perfect. Laughing out loud and wishing that they had been honest, then I could have remained a member of that party.

    • DDC

      Try the Muslims, and yes the terrorists groups. That is why you haven’t heard him talk about the Fort Hood shooting by a Muslim. Also all the other Muslims facing trials, and also the Muslim brother on the Christmas day attempt to blow up the plane.
      OBAMA BACKS ALL THE MUSLIMS.

    • cr747

      All of Obamas money came from illegals, such as drug cartels,a lot of the ones he appointed to positions in the White House, and oh yes don’t forget about the Muslim contributors.

      What puzzles me is why a person would spend millions for a job, or should I say a position. that only pays a few HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars. Kind of weird isn’t it???
      Boy “WE THE PEOPLE” sure got a dead horse this time. He doesn’t have as much sense as a stubborn ole mule. Non American, Muslim, puppet on a string, and a Rev. Wright wannabe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • http://RonPaulblastsDickCheney Duffy

      I know for a fact, Obama got three million dollars from a Muslim in England, just can’t remember his name, but it was in the British papers when Obama was campaigning.

  • John

    I would just like to know where BHO came from

    • Harold Olsen

      According to one of Obama’s uncles who was present at his birth: Kenya.

  • http://aol nancy says

    I believe when candidate is campaign use there own money because they usually have money. If
    special interest stay out, maybe candidates would get there heart back to believing in AMERICA.
    WE THE PEOPLE can believe in our candidates.

    GOD BLESS AMERICA

  • rwnut

    John McCain is a Democratic plant within the Republican party. He cannot be counted upon or trusted when it’s time to vote. When conservatives get near a victory this RINO will step in to block it! After all this is the man who threw the Presidential race to Hussien! Arizona,unite and throw RINO McCain out of office. Elect J.D.Hayworth!

  • ONTIME

    So now it’s okay if the company “ask” you if you want to donate to a candidate of your choice and help get them elected, whereas the union would “take” your money and vote for their candidate and then ask you if you wanted your money back at a later date…..John McCain is still a RINO and I hope my money goes to J.D. Hayward in the Senate race.

  • http://todarethefuture.com Wilfred Mische

    When will the corporate fundraising start? At the precinct caucuses? By the time the state conventions end, the candidates will already have been bought and sold for the Dems and the Repubs.

    The solution – A law that requires and limits all media to provide a free and equal campaign opportunity for each candidate during one month before local and national primary and general elections.

    • DaveH

      Campaign Finance Reform should be more properly titled “The Incumbent Entrenchment System”.
      It takes a lot of money for challengers to gain recognition. The incumbents like McCain know that. So they tried to guarantee themselves lifetime jobs by stifling campaign advertisements.
      And as Robert pointed out, when campaign ads are suppressed it gives the MSM more power to steer the elections.
      Please people, take the time to read about these sweet sounding lies (I mean laws), and figure out their real effects on our freedom.

    • Tinwarble

      So, that whole first amendment thing should just be thrown out the window. I mean, who really cares about the whole freedom of speech or the press, I suppose that they should also limit the posts on this website so that everyone has an equal say. And I suppose that we should take half the Conservative talk radio people off the air and replace them with Liberal personalities even though no one really wants to hear them.

      • eyeswideopen

        Tin, you bring up good point, MSNBC has Republican commentators, does Fox have any Dem’s??? If it were fair and balanced wouldn’t the other side be represented like they are at MSNBC? Just asking what your idea of fair and balanced is?

        • eyeswideopen

          Tin, here are a few of the Republican strategists/commentators who appear on MSNBC: Pat Buchanan, Leslie Sanchez, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Frank Gaffney, Rick Santorm, Ron Christie, Rich Galen, John Stililides, Dan Bartlett, Doug Heye and many more. Does Fox have any Democrats on any of their shows?

          • http://Walkermedia.org ARTHUR

            IT MAY SOUND UNREALISTIC BUT THE WHOLE VOTING SCAM IS BASED ON WHAT POLITICIANS CAN GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY RETURNING THEIR OWN TAX DOLLARS TO THEM. TH CHICKENS GET A FEW GRAINS AND THE BIG BOYS KEEP PLAYING THE INTERNATL CARD GAME. THEY RECEIVE MONEY TO VOTE FOR AND MONEY TO VOTE AGAINST. WHAT A GAME PLAN.

  • http://todarethefuture.com Wilfred Mische

    And require that as the only campaign opportunity for all candidates.

  • Fred

    Who needs finance reform when you have ACORN and its band of merry folks out there hitting the bricks
    at our expense and the guards at the polls slapping their nightsticks ?

  • Lee

    The only real solution to this problem is to allow only a public campaign with requirements that the media give equal exposure to all major party candidates. Campaign financing is completely out of hand. Qualifications and positions of all canditates could be posted online.

    • James

      Lee,”with requirements that the media give equal exposure”? The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of…the press.” The only exceptions to that, which courts have allowed is prohibiting someone from yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire, and similar sayings.

  • http://PersomalLibertyDigest Brandy

    REMEMBER THE “NOBEL PEACE PRIZE OBAMA WAS AWARDED”
    Which Charity did OBAMA Donate the Nobel Peace Prize Money to that he received from Norway ?
    Anyone care to elaborate on this question

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.