Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act / Supreme Court was right to strike down "Wellstone Amendment"

Jump to: navigation, search

"This is speech by people seeking a redress of grievances. The italicized words are from the First Amendment's enumeration of rights that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging. . . . " Yet four Supreme Court justices -- Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- supported the FEC's judgment that McCain-Feingold required banning WRTL's ad."

From Setback for the Censors, by George F. Will (The Washington Post, 28 June 2007) (view)

"The narrow majority of the Supreme Court on Monday, however, found an overriding principle at play: that the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, and denying an organization the right to express its views on a politically critical issue like abortion transgresses that first constitutional amendment."

From If in doubt, choose freedom, by The Arizona Republic editorial board (The Arizona Republic, 28 June 2007) (view)

"Dissenting justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer railed against the decision, denouncing the high cost of modern campaigns and "the electoral leverage of concentrations of money." These laments suggest they think their role is to advance what they see as wise policy. In fact, the job of the court is to assure that laws, however well-intended, comply with the demands of the Constitution."

From Free speech and campaigns, by Chicago Tribune editorial board (Chicago Tribune, 26 June 2007) (view)

"McCain-Feingold has done nothing to accomplish its stated purpose, that is to keep money out of politics. When the federal government spends $3 trillion a year, there is no way to "keep money out of politics"; too much is at stake. Money just finds other outlets, and is spent in ways for which no one is accountable. That's no reform at all."

From Free speech sanity, by Rocky Mountain News editorial board (Rocky Mountain News, 26 June 2007) (view)

"Those without the means to directly participate in political debate ought to have the option of helping out financially those who do. Even in large doses. Doing so is, in effect, an extension of the First Amendment - the heart of democracy. Not until the entire McCain-Feingold bill is struck down will Americans enjoy full freedom of speech."

From One Step For Free Speech, by New York Post editorial board (New York Post, 26 June 2007) (view)

"Monday's decision addresses what even some supporters of the law recognized as its constitutional Achilles' heel. Congress was concerned that some issue ads were veiled ads for or against a candidate — as they were. But in creating a net that would remove phony issue ads from the airwaves, McCain-Feingold arguably hauled in genuine issue ads — those designed to affect a legislator's vote, not to reelect (or de-elect) him."

From A good tweak, by Los Angeles Times editorial board (Los Angeles Times, 26 June 2007) (view)

"The decision contained a lot of pious language about protecting free speech. But magnifying the voice of wealthy corporations and unions over the voice of candidates and private citizens is hardly a free speech victory."

From Three Bad Rulings, by The New York Times editorial board (The New York Times, 26 June 2007) (view)

"The forgotten people in this process -- the candidates themselves -- can raise money from individuals in relatively small amounts and buy their own ads. But their commercials are likely to get lost amid the din of unaccountable distortions made possible by bad legislation and worse judicial interpretation of it."

From The Rich Get Richer, by David Lebedoff (The Washington Post, 26 June 2007) (view)

"Rather than try to plug the leaks in McCain-Feingold, Congress would be wise to consider a different approach, one that has withstood court challenges and is taking hold in seven states and two cities: voluntary public financing of campaigns. Candidates get public money to wage campaigns in exchange for agreeing not to accept large donations from special interests."

From High Court opens door for wealthy interest groups, by USA Today editorial board (USA Today, 26 June 2007) (view)