Betsy's Page
HOME
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
The truth about Avesil
Cheap Hosting
Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Online Bachelors Degree
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Monday, June 25, 2007
A victory for free speech
In a 5:4 decision, the Supreme Court loosened restrictions on advertisements about incumbents even if the incumbent is running for reelection. The 2002 campaign finance law commonly known as McCain-Feingold had limited any political ads 60 days before an election.The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.I wish they had gone all the way and overthrown the entire provision limiting issue ads in the two months before an election. Political speech is the most important speech to be accorded freedom of speech protections. I can't believe the Founding Fathers who lived in an era of scurrilous journalism would have wanted to limit the right of groups to criticize politicians. The Sedition Act of John Adams' administration that aimed to limit all criticism by his political opponents and their newspapers is now regarded as a major stain on civil rights of our early years. Otherwise, our Founders recognized that it was their ability to speak out against the British government that allowed them to mobilize support for the Revolution and that is why they enthroned freedom of speech in the First Amendment
Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.
The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.
The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing to go in allowing issue ads.
Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision.
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said only that the Wisconsin group's ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads and are not covered by the court's 2003 decision.Labels: Supreme Court
0 comments
Comments:
In a 5:4 decision, the Supreme Court loosened restrictions on advertisements about incumbents even if the incumbent is running for reelection. The 2002 campaign finance law commonly known as McCain-Feingold had limited any political ads 60 days before an election.
0 comments
In a 5:4 decision, the Supreme Court loosened restrictions on advertisements about incumbents even if the incumbent is running for reelection. The 2002 campaign finance law commonly known as McCain-Feingold had limited any political ads 60 days before an election.
The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.I wish they had gone all the way and overthrown the entire provision limiting issue ads in the two months before an election. Political speech is the most important speech to be accorded freedom of speech protections. I can't believe the Founding Fathers who lived in an era of scurrilous journalism would have wanted to limit the right of groups to criticize politicians. The Sedition Act of John Adams' administration that aimed to limit all criticism by his political opponents and their newspapers is now regarded as a major stain on civil rights of our early years. Otherwise, our Founders recognized that it was their ability to speak out against the British government that allowed them to mobilize support for the Revolution and that is why they enthroned freedom of speech in the First Amendment
Feingold, a co-author of the campaign finance law, was up for re-election in 2004.
The provision in question was aimed at preventing the airing of issue ads that cast candidates in positive or negative lights while stopping short of explicitly calling for their election or defeat. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.
Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by his conservative allies, wrote a majority opinion upholding the appeals court ruling.
The majority itself was divided in how far justices were willing to go in allowing issue ads.
Three justices, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, would have overruled the court's 2003 decision upholding the constitutionality of the provision.
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said only that the Wisconsin group's ads are not the equivalent of explicit campaign ads and are not covered by the court's 2003 decision.
Labels: Supreme Court
Comments:
Post a Comment
