The Supreme Court today struck down a portion of the steaming pile of feces that is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" act:
The Supreme Court loosened restrictions Monday on corporate- and union-funded television ads that air close to elections, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.
The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.
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.
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.
I'll have more later, but I'm awfully pleased that the First Amendment has regained a tiny shred of its intended importance. I wonder what McCain's dying Presidential campaign will say? He's going to have a hard time criticizing this ruling while still pretending that he'd appoint constructionist judges.
Two words:
w000 h0000!!!!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Except that this same Supreme Court today restricted students' free speech rights.
"Except that this same Supreme Court today restricted students' free speech rights."
Yeah, I saw that too. Such are the inconsistencies of a nearly-split Court.
I'm really waiting to see the ruling on the race/diversity/schools case. That could have huge implications for Unit 4.
The "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case was on fairly shakey ground to begin with. Depending on how one looked at it it was quite obviously an untouchable free speech issue or obviously within the school's jurisidiction issue. Lots of people, myself included initially, saw the kids off school grounds, and basically out of reach of school rules.
Merely being across the street might have normally mattered if it had been a normal school day where there wasn't a school sponsored activity on the street in question. What really seemed to bug people was that these kids appeared to be outside what we all used to believe was "outside our teacher's jurisdiction." They couldn't do anything to us off school grounds! Unfortunately for the kids that school sponsored activity outside hosed them.
Nobody denies that if they had unfurled this banner inside the gymnasium at a pep-rally they would have been suspended too.
Nobody denies that if they had been on a field trip and pulled this stunt that they would have been suspended too. Even if they showed up late to the field trip. As soon as they showed up, they were under the supervision of school faculty. In this case it was it was right outside the school as opposed to at the zoo or museum, etc.
The Court's decision makes clear that if it had not been done at the area of a school activity but rather down the road a ways this wouldn't have even been an issue as the only issue was a school policy that prohibits the advocacy of illegal drug use, considering it a disruptive influence for obvious reasons. Heck, they might have even gotten away with it if the sign was aimed at the traffic and not the other students across the street. Especially if there was no school sponsored event going on. If they hadn't been students there may not have been any recourse as school policy wouldn't have applied, etc.
There is the worry about how broad a school may expand what they consider a school sponsored event to prevent kids from advocating drug use anywhere off school grounds but the court didn't really touch on this issue so much and that question is still up in the air. Though I strongly doubt, considering earlier opinions, it is giving school systems the ability to prohibit free speech for students no matter where they go whether or not school is in session.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Here's the text of the Bong Hits opinion for anyone interested here.
And the text of the McCain-Feingold decision here.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
So we get to see more (and sooner) political spin ads-----there is real excitment. At least it is not REALITY TV.
"So we get to see more (and sooner) political spin ads-----there is real excitment. At least it is not REALITY TV."
I'd much rather see political ads than another two weeks worth of "news" coverage about Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith.
IP writes: "Such are the inconsistencies of a nearly-split Court."
FEC v WRTL: (McCain-Feingold)
ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined,
Morse v Frederick: (Bong Hits):
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.
Um, that looks like the same lineup to me - nothing to do with a "split Court." Rather, it has to do with the inconsistencies in their jurisprudence - "Speech for me, but not for thee!"
"Um, that looks like the same lineup to me - nothing to do with a "split Court." Rather, it has to do with the inconsistencies in their jurisprudence - "Speech for me, but not for thee!""
Good point.
another reason for vouchers - if you don't like how a school controls student speech, you can take your voucher and go elsewhere
Rather, it has to do with the inconsistencies in their jurisprudence - "Speech for me, but not for thee!"
Actually in the Bongs case it had more to do with the schools authority situation in loco parentis more than the kids normal free speech rights otherwise. So this is probably not the best description.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
There is nothing remotely inconsistent between the two cases. Minors in the custody of their parents or a school have never had an absolute right to free speech, even such important free speech as "bong hits for Jesus." Even the ultra-liberal ninth circuit ruled that the principal was within the school's rights in pulling down the sign. The argument was over whether the kid could be suspended also.
If you are having trouble bending your brain around the legalities, try this: imagine your reaction if an adult drug dealer held a similar sign across from your kid's school. This gentleman is not part of a school activity, is not a minor, is not actually in possession of or selling drugs. Would you countenance an arrest for breach of the peace or some other charge? I would. There are clear and sensible limits possible on speech. However, one of them is not criticism of politicians at election time.
John