Statement of Russ Feingold on the Supreme Court's Decision Today in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life

[flpoljunkie]

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
On the Supreme Court’s Decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC

June 25, 2007

Washington, DC – Today the United States Supreme Court reached its decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, a case challenging the application of the electioneering communications provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill to particular advertisements that ran in Wisconsin in July and August 2004. The McCain-Feingold bill prohibited corporations and unions from spending their treasury money on ads that mention federal candidates 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Following the decision, Senator Feingold released this statement:

“While I am disappointed in today’s ruling in the Wisconsin Right to Life case, it does not affect the Court’s decision four years ago in McConnell v. FEC that banning unlimited "soft money" contributions to the political parties is fully constitutional. The new decision also does not overturn the McConnell ruling that the issue ad provision of the McCain-Feingold law is constitutional. Unfortunately, the test that the Court sets out for challenges to the law by those who wish to run specific ads -- whether the ads in question are the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” and are “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate” -- seems susceptible to easy manipulation by groups intent on spending corporate and union money to influence elections.

“It remains to be seen whether this new test will prove as hollow as the old “magic words” test, which the McConnell court called “functionally meaningless.” The FEC should not allow today’s decision to open the door for a return to the pre-McCain-Feingold days of phony issue ads and unlimited corporate and union spending on campaigns. If that is the result, the Court will have done the country a great disservice.”

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/07/06/20070625.htm

[welshTerrier2]

1. this is the epicenter of the battle for democracy

not much point in discussing it on DU or demanding that ALL candidates make publically financed campaigns a part of the Democratic Party's platform ... no sense fighting to stand behind the American people and against treating big corporate money as free speech ... no reason to worry that our candidates are being purchased ...

nothing to see here ... just move along ...

k&r ...

[Supersedeas]

2. sadly, we'll see very little discussion from the superficial pin heads like Tweety

[lurky]

3. Commercial news outlets make their money from commercials.

All that campaign cash is going straight into their corporate coffers.

Any (commercial) broadcast journalist who challenges the status quo is making a pretty bold move, since our corrupt campaign-finance system pays a big chunk of his or her salary, as well that of his or her corporate bosses. That's without even considering all the angry advertisers who rely on our corrupt system to get their way. Someone like Tweety has a lot to lose by telling the truth about money and politics, and he doesn't strike me as an especially bold guy.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Scumbag attorney representing WRTL

is none other than James Bopp of Terre Haute, Indiana

He has represented Republican Majority Issue Committee (Delay)
James Madison Center for Free Speech (McConnell)
National Right to Life

2000 Florida Recount

[cascadiance]

5. Think we need to find ways to impeach a few SCOTUS justices in 2009!

Need to find cases/behavior where the laws would allow us to do so. It's clear that even with a Democratic Congress and President, SCOTUS will still get in the way of any meaningful FDR-style change, if they aren't already in the way now.

[Dinger]

6. I Wholeheartedly Agree calipendence!

That deserves its own post, seriously.

[Peggy Day]

7. They lied thru their teeth in their conformation hearings.

Isn't that an impeachable offensive?

[cascadiance]

8. If refusing to hear Sibel Edmonds case was an attempt to coverup misdeeds of those in office...

... as noted in my sig here (November 28th), that might be another means to get them impeached too. If and when we can ever get her to testify and the truth comes out, they might have some 'splainin' to do!

[ProSense]

9. Roberts and Alito

As John, Clarence, Nino, Sammy and Tony assault free speech, consider Congress' power