When John McCain co-authored the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law he probably didn’t envision it helping him lose his run for the presidency in 2008, but such is the law of unintended consequences. McCain-Feingold restricted large donors from taking out ads in support of candidate and issues. This mainly penalized corporate donors. When Obama reneged on his commitment to participate in federal financing for his general election campaign, McCain was left holding the bag. He was restricted as to how much money he could spend. If his law hadn’t existed, he would have been able to get around that problem and match Obama’s media saturation.
The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law was unconstitutional on its face, and no true conservative could believe it when President Bush signed it into “law.” Even though our representatives swear an oath to defend the constitution, they continually pass laws that subvert it. One of the only remedies to this is the courts, and finally today the SCOTUS essentially nullified the law in a 5 to 4 decision.
Predictably, some of the left are already attacking the decision as handing elections over to big business and the “fat cats”. The truth is, in an age where capitalism is on the defensive as the administration seeks to hamstring it at all costs, lifting the ban will allow corporations to defend themselves against anti-business laws and candidates.
With unemployment “unexpectedly” rising yet again, and the administration continuing to hinder recovery through more inflationary and anti-business policies, this is yet another blow to the anti-capitalists who were savoring the near collapse of the system last year and are trying to hasten its total demise.
What do you know? ”Change” is a two way street. Can’t wait to hear Keith Olbermann’s “Special Comment” on the subject tonight on Countdown.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
49 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by greychampion, BigJournalism. BigJournalism said: McCain in Vain: A Constitutional Triumph for the Freedom of Speech http://bit.ly/4ZQFWk [...]
This is shaping up to be the best week of 2010 so far. Maybe Olberdouche will pop a vessel and die in the middle of Countdown. November can't come soon enough.
" When Obama reneged on his commitment to participate in federal financing for his general election campaign, McCain was left holding the bag."
It is terrible, being reduced to "bagholder".
The most stunning aspect of this decision today was that there were four dissenters against freedom of speech. Not surprisingly, there were ALL the progressive liberals! This says a great deal about the tyrannical nature of this group of people. They don't really believe in freedom of conscience at all.
Even more shocking — that these progressive justices are on the Supreme Court at all. Instead of abiding by their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, they are doing everything they can think of to undermine and destroy it. What does that say about that natures and their characters?!
I must admit much to my chagrin, that I am glad it bit McCain in the tuchas. At least our country will now have the proper cleansing of the Progressives that it has needed for a very long time. If McCain had won, we would still be moving along in a slumber, unawares of the monster under the bed. Though McCain would not have taken us on this hellish trip, we would not have questioned as much as we question now. You gotta love the irony in it all!
And it is a good day to know that five of the nine SCOTUS still believe that the Constitution is a solid document to this day! Not living and breathing in some sort of new age way!
In the comments on another BJ article, some dumb@ss said, "A corporation is not a person!"
That was the whole comment. Clearly a deranged libtard.
My reply?
"Well, neither is ACORN or SEIU."
When a business can bleed and die for this country then they should have a voice. Freedom has died today in dramatic fashion. The government parties have officially silenced the voters and declared this republic dead.
What's even MORE stunning, though, is that one of the AUTHORS of this heinous pile of stinking donkey crap is allegedly a "conservative"! But then McCain has ALWAYS been given that moniker by the tea-bagging MSM.
Here in the Commonwealth of Virginia a corporation is considered a legal entity just like a person. That's why you can sue a corporation. Otherwise you would have to sue everyone IN a corporation. Not an easy task.
It's a fitting irony that McCain was the biggest loser under McCain/Feingold.
Barry's makebelieve war against Fox (free speech) was just booted by the Supremes. A great week for America! God Bless America !
What in the hell is Sarah Palin helping McCain in his reelection campaign.
McCain is a Progressive.
A word of advise to Palin "GET FAR FAR AWAY FROM MCCAIN"
He helped make her famous, so she is returning the favor.
I understand what you mean when you say "the Constitution is a solid document" and not a living, breathing document, but I think it is a living breathing document. It can be changed, but only by a vote of the PEOPLE (2/3rds of the states must ratify any changes to the Constitution, so even though it can be changed, change should not and cannot be made lightly), not by the Courts. It is not a jurist's job to change the laws of this country, thereby legislating from the bench. It is the job of a judge to interpret and apply the law without prejudice or bias. This is a great day for America.
Like making a deal with the devil
One always must remember; that when dealing with the devil, you always come out as junior partner.
I never miss an opportunity to make Keith Olbermann squeal like a stuck pig.
I choose the term "Living" because it is use by progressives in their interpretation of the Constitution. I usually don't like to use Wikipedia but here goes their definition:
……the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with long outdated views is often unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that the theory can be used by judges to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation.
Google "living constitution theory". I think you might change your mind on using "living" to describe the constitution, because looking at what your described (which I agree with on every aspect) it doesn't fit the Progressives definition.
Take a gander for yourself~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Snip "..One of the only remedies to this is the courts"
True, and it scares the crud out of me because we are just one sitting member away from a Zimbabwean Utopia.
Being nice seems to be a conservative double edged sword. "Here let me help you prime that fuse.."
Only said 1/2 in jest.
As long as we dreaming maybe he will do it in his car crash through the window of MSNBC and pin Maddow to the wall of the set, Chrissy runs over to help and is enveloped in the fire ball…
I don't really wish death on any of them but it made me laugh
I would dearly like to see legislation that is contentious brought befor teh SCOTUS before it's enacted.
The corrupticans would claim this would slow things down, as if that were a bad thing…
Snip "…McCain has ALWAYS been given that moniker by the tea-bagging MSM"
When your enemies praise someone on your side of the debate watch out!
We are only one sitting member away from a Zimbabwean utopia, sometimes that keeps me up at nights.
You really are a thinking man! I can relate!
To this republic there is nothing more sacred than individual freedom, for it was individual freedom an individual sacrifice the sacrifice of blood, body, and life that gave meaning and birth to a nation before a single word on a piece paper was written. Our sacred documents our soaked in the blood of individual sacrifice and thus it is individual freedom that must have priority over the money of business.
Business has no vote and thus no voice.
Business is a creation of government and thus part of government and thus no voice.
Business can not exist with out government, only trade between two individuals can and thus no voice.
Government can not exist without individual sacrifice and thus individual freedom has top priority.
When a business can bleed and die for this country then they should have a voice. Freedom has died today in dramatic fashion. The government parties have officially silenced the voters and declared this republic dead.
John "RINO" McCain got slammed by his own signature legislation……..
A word to the wise………….reflect on you RINO ways……..
Well, he's been doing that on the air–figuratively at least–for quite a long time now.
My friend, you and I are on the same team, and normally on the same page; but on this topic, we differ in opinion. That does not mean we will be at odds, for I respect your opinion(s), and read your material. I happen to agree with most of what you wrote here.
Personally though, I believe that business, as commerece, is created through individuals. Without individual mutual consent, there can be no business, or commerce, nor corporations.
I agree that individual freedom must have the top, and ultimate priority.
I know most would not agree, because most see business as personal property and it is as long it is owned by one person and thus can be used by that person as he sees fit. . it is too hard explain complexities in a short version. i could have said all enities granted status as a person, by the government are not entitled to vote or voice, since they are not a natural person and who would have understood that. so I went quick version and said business. any creation by the government is not a natural person and thus has no rights that supercede a real person. but I always compare all things to the sacrifice of vets. that one single voice that has earned the right to be heard and no way should have that voice dimished..
cont.
the SC has already ruled a members list can not be used as part of a petition, because each person already has the right to sign individualy and so they should have ruled the members of a corp. and other non natural persons already have the right to use their money individualy and thus can use the money of the corpartion this is best explaination I can do for a commoner.
The vet has earned the right to have their one single voice heard and in no way should have it dimished. By allowing corp. a voice, you have granted them a vote and thus dimished the voice of a real person. The members of a corp already have individual voice and their own money to do with what they please but to ehance their voice above that of a vet is more than just wrong it is socialism..
if the SC was so right why not grant them the right to vote and give them all the votes they earned with their money?
under seizure laws property has no rights so why grant business which is property rights?
The reason is the very lively hood of the Stock Holders, Partners, Owners etc are dependent on certain conditions to either exist or continue to exist. Companies/Corperations employ real people and the health of a company has real consequences. Groups should be allowed advocacy adds and under McCain Fiengold they were restricted from those adds when it would make a difference. The Supreme Court has not allowed Corperations to donate more to individual candidates than any other individual so that remains the same but a Company/Corperation should not be prevented from running advocacy adds. Under McCain Fiengold it was possible for the FEC to actually ban books from publication as stated in the Arguments before the Court. Just because they have not done it yet does not mean they would not do it in the future.
Why should unions have the ability to finance commercials and not a corporation? Why should Moveon.org have the ability to finance commercials and not corporations? Do you hate Halliburton too? I can't figure out why so many individuals hate a company of Engineers. Man, now those guys are scary. They know how to measure and build and create. We should all hate and be fearful of "Engineers", right? Who needs toilets anyway?
Lorben
Subversion of our language–the liberal way–and 'gay' =homo?
I'm not sure the Libs know what a body blow to their agenda SCOTUS just administered.
I pray every day for the Constitutionalists on the Court's heath and well-being. Without them we would be truly lost. GWB's lasting legacy will be Roberts and Alito.
I actually agree with the President on this one. Gutting McCain/Feingold is going to flood the media with special interest money. That's good for unions, corporations and big media networks, but that's bad for democracy. The airwaves will be filled with even more spin than they are now, thus manipulating stupid voters even more. Worst of all, our politicians will be in the pockets of unions and corporations to an even greater extent – although there is a cap on direct contributions to candidates from those organizations (thank God), unions and corporations can now relieve a candidate of a large chunk of his or her advertising costs, which is almost the same thing as a direct contribution. SCOTUS and the RNC are framing this decision as a victory for free speech because, evidently, money is speech and corporations are people. Okay. I understand that's how our law works. But that doesn't mean it's right or good for freedom. What this decision has really done is give special interests even more power to drown out the voices of flesh-and-blood Americans.
Did you read the decision? Unions did NOT have the ability to finance commercials. Under McCain/Feingold, unions and corporations were treated the same. It wasn't that unions could buy ads and corporations couldn't. Now, with the SCOTUS decision, both unions and corporations can buy political ads without restriction. And I strongly agree with thebarbarian that this is just going to drown out the voices of flesh-and-blood Americans in favor of special interest money.
Bush did not like campaign finance reform.
My theory is that McCain reluctantly endorsed Bush back in 2000 in exchange for Bush’s private vow not to veto McCain Feingold. Sometimes we are so busy following the money that we neglect to see other motivators.
If I’m right then Bush likely made his decision to give his word based upon his assumption that M/F would not get through (pre-Enron) congress or, failing that, that the Supreme Court would strike it down.
Actually, what the decision said today is that the Unions and the trial lawyers and the billionnaire lefists….(George Soros) won't have an edge over the corporations, and what about GM corporation, does that mean that they can give tax dollars to the liberal progressive "Demobrat" party and that taxpayers will have to foot the bill for it? Get ready for the teabaggers because they are on their way. If we can just survive the 60's again, and we're almost through it, we can survive anything. We're almost finished with them for good. Thank God and get ready for the 70's……those kids are gonna save us!
Another great example luilui! Just trying to have my eyes wide open.
the stock holder already have the right to vote and have the right to spend their money as they please, but a corp is property and thus taxed and can advertise it products with in the law. A membership list can not be used as a vote or petition, because the individal has the right and duty to sign one on his own. when declare corp a non person the right to infulence politics you made all men a slave and property.
I think maybe it is time we define "Good behavior" as that is the prerequisite for sitting judges. Read the words of Madison and Jefferson and realize, if it is contrary to the Constitution, it is blatantly unconstitutional no matter what the SCOTUS may say. If this was the first time this criminal law came before the SCOTUS there is at least some room for a little leniency but … WHAT THE HAY TOOK SO LONG?
This McCain ruling has giving foreigners and foreign government and our enemies the right to influence our government and thus you cheer our surrender to our foes.
The Supreme Court should have struck it down on the first challenge. They failed to uphold the Constitution. I think President Bush signed thinking that the SC would overturn it and put paid to the whole issue. A veto just meant that it would keep coming up.
Now, as much as the President and certain members of Congress complain, there is nothing they can do. The Supreme Court has the final say. They can bluster all they want, but their only recourse is to try and pass new legislation.
I hope AZ gets rid of McCain. He is a traitor.
Businesses typically donates campaign money to candidates of both parties in hopes that those candidates will remember them when they are voting on bills that further regulate and restrict business. In a sense, a business has to purchase a "protection plan" against legistlative harrasment; they have to "purchase" a politian who is not going to restrict their rights to earn a proffit. If the government was not so hellbent on hamstringing business, businesses would not have to donate for election campaigns, at least to the extent that they are seen as "buying an election". If a business takes a certain liking to a certain candidate and not the other(s), then, just like prior to McCain/Fiengold, they can create ads and run them up to the election. So what changes now if we revert to what was before? We people can still make up our minds about who to vote for no matter how much money is thrown at a candidate, or much is spent on an ad. Never once has an ad persuaded my vote.
You must be logged in to post a comment.