Federal Appeals Court Voids Campaign Finance Reform Rules

[DainBramaged]

Source: Washington Post

A federal appeals court overturned hard-fought campaign finance reform regulations in a ruling on Friday that will make it easier for independent political groups to raise and spend money to influence elections.

The three-judge panel struck down regulations intended to blunt the power of such organizations, including the controversial Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org, which drew heavy criticism for spending tens of millions of dollars on aggressive advertisements during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The ruling, if it stands, could provide a boost to Republicans and their allies as they try to win back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Outside conservative groups could become particularly important in countering the fundraising juggernaut of President Obama, who shattered past records by raising more than $750 million during his 2008 campaign.

Experts suggested that the court's decision could provide a boon to groups tapping into the fervor of anti-Obama activity and "tea party" events. It will certainly allow groups across the political spectrum to raise and spend money without pause, potentially leading to a more acerbic campaign environment.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091801698.html

---

I am not happy about this decision even though it benefits us. Hopefully it will be stayed on appeal.

[dotymed]

1. Hope...

That the SCOTUS doesn't overturn their campaign financing
ruling also. With the court packed with neo-cons, it is a real
possibility. OUR CONGRESS needs to pass a bill that will allow
only publicly financed elections. It is the only way to keep
the Congress true to their real constituents and keep the
bribes (see bradblog.com,on Sibel Edmonds testimony) from
buying the congressional votes. It is pathetic that we now
live in a corportacracy...

[UpInArms]

2. wow! what a piece of shit article!

the skew toward - this could help

all the rightwing flucknut groups

seems to miss that the left will and can raise just as much money and we will not ever drop our guard again.

[creeksneakers2]

3. It is free speech

If a group wants to pool their money and run ads, that's free speech.

Anyway, the whole approach of campaign finance to curtailing corruption is flawed. Money will always influence politics. Its impossible to police from the money end.

Suppose a politician meets a lobbyist in a hotel room and takes a bribe for his vote. How would anybody know? On the other hand, if the lobbyist is paying the politician, its to vote against the public interest. Votes and government business can be transparent and easy to watch, and it would easy to catch the troubling vote.

We've become a society looking for the big easy score. Rather than do the hard time consuming work to expose the public wrongdoing that can be seen, we want the chance to point the finger of destruction at our enemies, the opportunity to win big instantly. We want to control who can say what. Judging from how well the public option is faring, this approach to reducing the role of big money in politics is failing.

Better to be able to pool money and get the word out about the truth. Better to concentrate on getting out a message than worrying about keeping others from telling their side. The truth can still win, and it would more often if policy, rather than futile attempts to investigate and get something on the other side would be the strategy.

[FBaggins]

4. I'd like to see the reasoning behind thus one.

Hasn't the USSC already spoken to this issue?

I also don't see how you think this benefits us.

[happyslug]

5. The Actual Opinion, a referral to it was at the News Cite.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/fecopinion091809.pdf?sid=ST2009091802025

The Court ruled that Non-Profits are more like individuals then for-profit Corporations or Unions and as such no restrictions can be imposed on them when it comes to free speech which includes spending money on or against a candidate. The court clearly stated its ruling did NOT affect for profit Corporations or unions, the Supreme Court (Till now, it is in litigation right now) has upheld contributions and spending restrictions on Corporations and non-profits BUT not on Individuals.

[alp227]

6. Power to the people?

If non-profits get fewer restrictions than the corporations?