A Body Blow To McCain-Feingold

The Supreme Court finds, by a 5-4 vote, that corporations (and presumaby others, such as unions) can spend as much as they want advocating whatever and whomever they want whenever they want.  Coordination and direct contributions to a campaign are still limited.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

...The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

The ruling comes at an interesting time.  Getting the money out of politics was a vital liberal fantasy at a time when Republicans routinely raised more money than Democrats.  When Obama out-raised McCain, well, Obama's promise to accept public financing and abide by its limits went by the boards.  However, its easy to imagine energized righties out-raising and out-spending dispirited lefties in 2010.

The print media will bleat, of course.  They had quite a powerful position when they, alone among corporations, were free to publicly and loudly endorse whomever they preferred.  The broadcast media pick up a whole new group of potential buyers for ad space.

Comments

[Danube of Thought]

Better late than never.

[Jack is Back!]

Now that is a great idea. Lets spend more money on politics and less on reducing the deficit, reducing taxes and reducing terror threats.

McCain's head must be spinning - first he gets a big national hug and handshake from Brown and now he gets this news.

[Rob Crawford]

Lets spend more money on politics and less on reducing the deficit, reducing taxes and reducing terror threats.

You realize the first comes from private sources and the rest of the list is government spending, right?

[narciso]

Wasn't that the end result why Soros and Pew and other foundations supported it. How we got
here, in part

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Jonathan Gruber called this decision a "great day for disclosure".

[Jack is Back!]

Rob,

I realize that but my point is that all this is going to do is make politics more money crazy and that translates to spend crazy when elected. We need to have a system similar to the parliamentary system where there is a 90 day window of campaigning so we can limit the expense. I favor free speech but we have made politics one of the only businesses still making money. No a good lesson for your kids to grow up on.

[Fred Beloit]

"I favor free speech but..." I've heard this before somewhere. In any case, if you want to work to change the Constitution there are legal ways. Getting a case into the court of a moonbat judge who rules from her own penumbra is not a good way. Good luck to you.

[sbw]

If you can't control political spending and are obliged instead to track it, tracking has to be easy with online access.

Now parties can give manual records, I think, and online contributions are Obamesque in their opaqueness.

And, while you are at it, cut out the money laundering that allow lefty wealthy to, for instance, launder loot through the Tides Foundation.

[Rob Crawford]

I realize that but my point is that all this is going to do is make politics more money crazy and that translates to spend crazy when elected.

Your point makes no sense; the conclusion does not follow the premise. There's no logical reason for spending (donated cash) during the campaign to correlate to spending (confiscated cash) while in office.

We need to have a system similar to the parliamentary system where there is a 90 day window of campaigning so we can limit the expense.

So we only have 90 days to find out about the candidates put forward by the machines? No thanks.

Restricting speech isn't the way to wind down government power; the restricted flow of information is what gave us Obama (for example). Anything that opens up the flow of information is good.

[Rob Crawford]

And, while you are at it, cut out the money laundering that allow lefty wealthy to, for instance, launder loot through the Tides Foundation.

Non-profits should be held to the same book-keeping standards as publicly traded companies. That requirement alone would be the end of the whole ACORN, SEIU, etc. mess, BTW.

[bio mom]

I want NOTHING that resembles parliamentary government. That is an unstable bewildering mess where you can be in power 20 years or 20 minutes and governments are failing all over the place. Our founding fathers were the best!! Let's never think about changing.

[JM Hanes]

SCOTUS Blog has the Campaign Finance ruling (PDF). I haven't read it yet, but per SCOTUS, they did uphold the disclosure and disclaimer clauses:

Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter as the Court upheld those requirements.

In an ideal world, there would be serious consequences for patently false advertising by political campaigns, but I'm afraid there's no way to get there without enabling massive government intrusions on the process. Shedding sunlight on campaign contributions across the board, however, not just advertisements, would go a long way toward mitigating the worst misrepresentations that plague the political process. It seems to me that improvement could be accomplished with relatively simple change to existing reporting requirements, which would not have major bureaucratic implications.

The lone Thomas dissent is intriguing, and I'll be interested to see where he's coming from.

[JM Hanes]

JiB:

"Lets spend more money on politics and less on reducing the deficit, reducing taxes and reducing terror threats."

There is zero reason to assume that money spent by anyone contributing to election campaigns would otherwise be spent on reductions of any kind elsewhere -- unless you are endorsing the position that government has first dibs on all your money.

The putative relationship between campaign spending and tax reduction, escapes me completely, unless you're suggesting that campaigns should be funded from the public till -- which means that strings will be inevitably attached and politically incorrect oxen gored.

[SteveP]

I favor free speech but...

If that was true you would be cheering the fact that the SCOTUS upheld the Constitutional right of free political speech for all, including groups that are out of favor, rather than whining that they will be able to spend their own money as they see fit to participate in the electoral process.

[clarice]

I just wrote this up for PM..Yes, the disclaimer and disclosrue provisions remain--I think only Thomas opposed that part of the decision. Stevens with visions of plutocrats dancing in his head was reportedly close to apoplectic.

Beware any provision that comes with a good govt tag attached to it and which editors of major mags and papers endorse. It is always an trojan horse designed to screw ciizens out of their rights.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

When asked why he didn't endorse political candidates (presumably Dems), Michael Jordan replied, 'Republicans buy underwear too.'

Iow, this won't have much effect on how corporations act. However, unions might be another matter.

[clarice]

It'll hurt the wallets of the countless sharpies who got rich on work arounds for unions, corps and Soros.

[Rob Crawford]

Iow, this won't have much effect on how corporations act. However, unions might be another matter.

AFAIK, unions weren't restricted before this ruling.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Non-profits should be held to the same book-keeping standards as publicly traded companies.

The IRS says they are.

The problem here is politicians and supporters of big government are already using not for profits to redistribute capital. So we'll never see any changes in law unless you can throw out a majority of the incumbents in every elected body in the country.

[Neo]

From the liberal side of the bench (including amazingly Ginsberg a former ACLU attoney), this rulling in many ways falls under what the NRA would call "bad cases make bad law."
The FEC really shot themselves in the foot going after Citizens United, but this ruling was ultimately in the works.

[JM Hanes]

The perpetual scrambling for funds which consumes so much of our 2 year Representatives' time in the House does concern me. The past year's events, culminating in Scott Brown's MA win, suggest to me that government regulation may be far less productive when it comes to changing the character of elections than the salutary effect of active citizen involvement in governance issues that Tea Party populism currently represents.

It's the officials who ignored Town Hall protests in their districts and avoided contact with their constituents who now find themselves at risk, regardless of their backers -- and in Coakley's case, in part because of them. Scott Brown shook hands at Fenway while she was shaking hands in Washington, and he ended up with a twofold advantage. He and his constituents got to know each other, and once he really crossed the radar, the money needed to make him competitive poured in. A whole complex of dynamics were in play, of course, but the Brown phenomenon is encouraging.

I'd love to see more grassroots activism at the state level pressing for an end the gerrymandering, which I, personally, think is the worst poison in the system.

[rse]

OT-

LUN are the cites on the attacks on the Hillbuzz site. They have outed the anonymity of the owner and are going after his primary livelihood.

They apparently do need help and just talking about it is a start.

[JM Hanes]

Neo:

Are you saying that the ruling or that McCain/Feingold is the bad law component here?

[rse]

Gabriel=

When I was doing some research on the connection between SEIU and the ed advocacy nonprofits like EDTrust, it pulled up regular programs being offered to many of the largest foundations in the country.

It was about what the foundations could do the push, fund, and implement their agenda. I will see if I can find the cite. It was one of those pages that won't let you in if you go to it directly. You have to be coming from an approved SEIU affiliate site.

[narciso]

The problem, that can't be solved through legislation, is to break the hold of the legacy media, what some have dubbed the SRM

[clarice]

neo, in my article, I said much as you do that had the FEC not overreached in the Citizens United csse the court would not have had such a clear csse of prior restraint on speech.

Unions and corporations were banned from using general funds for federal campaign purposes. They both got around this by setting up PaCS. Of course, theres not much monitoring of the procedure. In the case of the Teamsters outisde professionals like lawyers and p.r. firms were paid more than they earned and they kicked back in when told to..Then a dem US Atty in DC looked the other way,, Trumka ped the fifth, others gto minor misdemeanor charges.

[rse]

I found it. It's called Foundation Strategies for Influencing Education Policy: A Seminar for Education Grantmakers (2005).

LUN

Did you know there's a National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy?

Guess how popular community organizing entities are for support?

[MarkO]

I'm a big fan of free speech. That the money and energy spent exercising that right could be spent on something else is just a silly argument.

[rse]

Clarice-

If you go to page 13 of the link above, you get an attorney for Alliance for Justice explaining what foundations should say and do to get around the legal constraints on direct advocacy.

There's a similar grant program to arrange comparable advocacy for health care.

[Extraneus]

The total media spending in the 2008 election cycle was $4.5B.

In 2006, the Frito Lay Corporation had over $35B in sales, with over 15 $100M brands such as LAY'S®, FRITOS®, CHEETOS®, BAKEN-ETS®, RUFFLES® DORITOS®, FUNYUNS®, TOSTITOS®, BAKED LAY'S®, SUNCHIPS®, MUNCHIES®, OBERTO®, ROLD GOLD®, and GRANDMA'S®.

Except for the MSM slugs that most of it'll go to, I wouldn't worry about some increased spending on political speech.

[SWarren]

Whaaat?? Schumer will hold hearings on today's SC decision???

[Extraneus]

So is Obama's harping on banking & Wall Street a means to depress the markets, so that he doesn't have to explain a post-Brown bounce?

[centralcal]

Yeah, Swarren, Chuckie, Bami and the gang are in full spittle mode and are looking for new legislation via hearings to overcome the SCOTUS ruling.

[Jane]

Schumer needs to be Scott Browned out of office.

[clarice]

rse, I've lived in D.C. since 1969 and I know as well as anyone anything Congress passes o limit campaign spending will be end run by sharpies here within 24 hours of its passage. The Dems got a jump on the Reps for a while with their 527s--created as mcCain was being led by the nose through the legislaive process, but that didn't last for long.
As for unions, they've been cheating on it forever with no reasonable expectation of being caught.

[narciso]

Yes but Alan Grayson brings the 'rich, creamy'
'stupidity to the fore, on the subject.

[clarice]

He is sinking in the polls, Jane , though still ahead a bit.

[sbw]

Narciso: The problem, that can't be solved through legislation, is to break the hold of the legacy media

I disagree. The problem is to get people to think. The media will change on its own after that.

[clarice]

A little sherbet from Ras:

Rasmussen Reports ^ | January 21, 2010
Republican Pat Toomey now leads incumbent Senator Arlen Specter 49% to 40% in Pennsylvania’s race for the U.S. Senate. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters also finds Toomey with a 43% to 35% lead over Democratic challenger Joe Sestak. A month ago Toomey led Specter by four and Sestak by six. In the state’s Democratic Senate Primary race, Specter now leads Sestak by 21 points. Just 41% of Pennsylvania voters favor the health care legislation currently before Congress while 57% are opposed.

[Extraneus]

Yeah, and HotAir wrote about this:

Republican Roy Blunt now holds a six-point lead over Democrat Robin Carnahan in Missouri’s race for the U.S. Senate.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Blunt ahead of Carnahan 49% to 43%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

[astonerii]

"The print media will bleat, of course. They had quite a powerful position when they, alone among corporations, were free to publicly and loudly endorse whomever they preferred. The broadcast media pick up a whole new group of potential buyers for ad space."

Maybe I missed something, but the media will still be in control, as they will be able to decide which commercials actually get the air time and print space. If I remember correctly, they freely allowed anti republican ads and infomercials while blocking anti democrat ones in the 2008 election.

[SWarren]

Heh. Who knew Specter was such a sexist. He tells Michele Bachman to "act like a lady". LUN

[Jane]

He is sinking in the polls, Jane , though still ahead a bit.

He needs to be defeated.

[Sue]

SWarren,

Good grief.

Totally off topic, but I am having major computer problems today. Every few minutes my computer locks up and I have to leave my browser and start over. It doesn't matter if I use Firefox or IE. It is so annoying. Actually, it is happening on two different computers and my virus scanner says I am not infected. Anyone else having problems?

[clarice]

My competer was infected so badly it died and narciso's has been badly infected as well.

[peter]

What balls. Obama is blasting the court's ruling. His campaign circumvented McCain Feingold and all other election laws, by turning off all of the controls on their credit card donations, thus allowing hundreds of millions of foreign money to be untraceable. Truly lawless. Sorry. I am not so upbeat about Senator Brown. There is so much to clean up after only one year of this POS skinny socialist in the White House. LUN

[Neo]

Are you saying that the ruling or that McCain/Feingold is the bad law component here?
I'm saying that for the opponents of this ruling, this case was the wrong case to pick their fight, but with the "Hiliary" component to it, they just couldn't resist from going to court on a case that ultimately was going to be their undoing.

Simply, they should have walked away to avoid letting the SCOTUS make their point.

[JM Hanes]

But Neo, it wasn't the opponents of this ruling who took the case to the Supreme Court, it was the producers of the Hillary video who were contesting its status as an electioneering communication.

[JM Hanes]

The bleating of the losers is music to the winners' ears.

[clarice]

The point was--and I made it in my article which still isn't up--is hat this would have been avoided if the FEC hadn't overreached. The group involved had produced an anti-Hillary video which they wanted to show on demand on cable.Thinking the FEC might subject them to criminal penalties for violating the 30 day before elections ban they sought injunctive relief. If the govt had decided it didn't have the power under the act to regulate this, the Cour might have passed on the case, but the govt overreached and even claimed a right to ban books in this same period. And they got shot down.

[Neo]

Just as Bill Clinton's rich contributors opened up may peoples eyes to the fact that "not all rich people are Republicans," the ultimate truth that this SCOTUS ruling will reveal is that corporations aren't all conservative or Republican.

[clarice]

Be that as it may--we cannot tell the outcome of the ruling on anyone's political fortunes but we can easily envision what pre-publication restraint on campaign period free speech leads to.

[Mister X]

That silence you hear is the sound of the right complaining about a bunch of activist judges once again making law from the bench. Wonder what they'll have to say when that librul judge in SF sends Prop 8 to the showers. Go Ted Olson!

[JM Hanes]

Have you actually read the decision, Mister X?

[Mister X]

No - are you saying that the SCOTUS didn't strike down the will of a majority of democratically elected law makers?

The selective outrage on the right when it comes to so-called "judicial activism" is so amusing to behold.

[sbw]

The selective outrage on the left when it comes to so-called "judicial activism" is so amusing to behold.

[bgates]

a bunch of activist judges once again making law?

We don't have a problem with judges - or Justices, for that matter - who uphold the plain meaning of the Constitution.

Why don't you provide a contrasting example of a case that provoked outrage on the right, so we can explain why you're wrong.

[Jim Ryan]

strike down the will of a majority of democratically elected law makers

If that's what you think judicial activism is, then of course you get selectively amused when you avoid reading decisions.

[clarice]

Mister X, the Court held its hand in McConnell, giving deference to the legislature on that case which rested on the statutory language alone and indicated if in practice it saw violations of the constitution i would act. And it did so incrementally in the Wisconsin Right to Life case which involved no appeal for or against a candidate in the 30 day period, merely an accurate statement that of a candidates position on the issue. It did so again in the Davis case which lifted the conributions limit for candidates running against millionaires who used their own money to run.
This case involved a clear prior restraint on speech and compelled acion to strike down he unconstitutional provision.

As for whose ox is gored..here's a litle amusing tidbit from Taranto (best of the Web):Obama was the first candidate to turn down the public financing provision which he had been pledged to follow so it is ridiculous for him to moan about fat cat financing permitted under the new ruling.

[Extraneus]

I guess Obama's walking right into another one over this, huh? Won't the "Against Free Speech" commercials be able to write themselves?

[clarice]

It must be some really fantastic course in Constitutional law he took at Harvard--really fantastic..

[Ignatz]

--No - are you saying that the SCOTUS didn't strike down the will of a majority of democratically elected law makers?--

The Supreme Court is only allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws that congress doesn't pass?
An interesting, but probably impractical thesis.

[clarice]

Ignatz..................

[Mister X]

Christ on a stick man, you have got to be kidding. Have you read the 14th Amendment? Where does it say that corporations are "persons"? Answer: it doesn't.

Walk up to any non-lawyer (or any level headed thinking lawyer) and ask him whether the plain meaning of "persons" includes corporations. He or she will probably laugh at the ridiculousness of the question.

On top of that, if you look at the origin for the notion that "person" = corporations, you will see that it was the writing of a law clerk, not the court, that created the precedent for this idea.

Plain meaning? You wouldn't know the concept if it bit you on the ...

[bgates]

The Supreme Court is only allowed to rule on the constitutionality of laws that congress doesn't pass?

It can rule on laws that have been passed, but only to affirm them.

Assent is the highest form of patriotism, after paying taxes.

[sbw]

Funny, I thought a corporation was the legal equivalent of a person, and I'm not even a lawyer.

[Extraneus]

Wikipedia:

Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.

[clarice]

Mister X it's a long held principle of law that a corporation is a legal person entitled to rights and privileges.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person
Perhaps they don't teach that in whatever reform school you attended but most literate Americans know that.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The problem is to get people to think.

It'd be easier to ask for a pony.

[boris]

Maybe people should think about asking for a pony. Problem solved.

[bgates]

Have you read the 14th Amendment?

Have you read the 1st? Or do you just have a blanket policy of not reading the things you want to voice your opinion on?

Walk up to any non-lawyer and ask whether the plain meaning of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is that Congress shall make laws abridging the freedom of speech by a group of people who have formed a corporation. He'll probably punch you in the nose because you're a dirty hippie.

[Mister X]

"Funny, I thought a corporation was the legal equivalent of a person, and I'm not even a lawyer."

But this does not make it the plain meaning. What I am waiting for from those on the right who demand that judges rely only on the "plain meaning" of the Constitution is some explanation of how the plain meaning of the word "person" includes corporations.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Where in: 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....', is there an exception for corporations?

[boris]

PRS, freedom of the press ... is the NYT a person or a corporation?

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

AFAIK, unions weren't restricted before this ruling.

Yes they were, and this ruling specifically overruled the part of McCain-Feingold that prohibited unions (as well as corporations) from running issue advocacy ads thirty days, or fewer, prior to an election.

[Porchlight]

OT:

Air America is finito. Goes off the air this afternoon. Awwwww. Quick, tune in and catch the tears if you still can:

http://airamerica.com/

What a week!

[clarice]

Heh--How Schumer is hurt by the decision:

LUN

[Sir Toby Belch]

Will someone please lead this oily, smarmy
beady-eyed Schumer from the stage and kick his butt out of the building!

AirAmerica- vaya con Dios.

[Sir Toby Belch]

Re: AirAmerica

Mike Malloy will have to go back to eating
wharf rats and crickets to stay alive.

[pagar]

"It did so again in the Davis case which lifted the conributions limit for candidates running against millionaires who used their own money to run."

Isn't this how the money that Soros first put into the Obama 2004 Senate race was allowed?

" Soros and his family gave Barack Obama $60,000."

[centralcal]

Air America was still broadcasting? Who knew?

Well, ask a dumb question - I guess no one knew, et voila, bankrupt.

[centralcal]

Clarice: your link about Schumer was also interesting for another reason. The names of his former aides:

Carmencita
Izzy
Ipyana

I am sure PUK could have done something marvelous with those!

[Rick Ballard]

Porchlight,

It's just the cheap glue giving up on the paper veneer over the 1/4" plywood facade of the "progressive movement". You need to add the CO2 Monster being crushed to death by a nimble glacier to the list. And, for those who follow energy, the "sudden" discovery that there's enough gas on tap to run the economy for 90 years without any new discoveries.

The only polite fiction remaining is the Chicom slavers "mercantilist miracle" and it takes a Duranty style cretin such as Friedman to buy that one.

Nothing has been overturned - only partially unmasked. Then again - it's only just begun.

[clarice]

cc, I can just imagine.
pagar, you may well be right. I can't recall specifically.I was of the impression that Soros did it thru a number of 537 ops he'd carefully set up in anticipation of the Act's passage and there ws no limit to contrbutions made in that round about way.

[Mister X]

"Where in: 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....', is there an exception for corporations?"

This assertion only invites the question, it does not answer it. If the federal government denies a class of supposed "persons" certain rights that others have, then it is a Fifth Amendment due process question, not a 14th. But the analysis is the same - is the class of supposed "persons" actually "persons" under either amendment. It's just more convenient to use the 14th since that's the authority originally relied on for the notion that corporations are "persons." And because the cases relied on by the court today have their ultimate origin in that precedent (Santa Clara), which, as I noted above, really didn't say that.

Sheesh - did you go to school?

Anyway, we're back to the same friggin question which no one has answered - how is it that the plain meaning of "person" means corporations?

[pagar]

I thought Air America was gone after Al Franken sucked all the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club money a href="http://henwood.blogspace.com/?p=1363">Out a few years ago.

[Extraneus]

So Obama's been flogging this bank tax and attacking Wall Street all week. And somehow the market is down, as opposed to up on the news of the MA election.

Coincidence?

[bgates]

the cases relied on by the court today

A quick glance at the first few pages shows the term "First Amendment" comes up a bunch of times. Why don't you get your sociology prof, or the guy who gets you your weed, or some other respected figure to explain that term to you?

[clarice]

It was the plain meaning at common law when the constitution was written. And interpreting the constitution by its plain meaning certainly means interpreting as it was meant when it was written.

[clarice]

But if I am wrong in that, it is clear that since at least 1941 the US has regarded corporations as legal persons and that precedent has existed for long enough to be entitled to be regarded as precedential.

[daddy]

"Christ on a stick - it would be refreshing if once, just once, a wingnut took some responsibility for the shitty situation Bush put the US in in Afghanistan. But that is far too much to ask, I suppose.

Posted by: The Man | September 01, 2009 at 02:00 PM

"Christ on a stick man, you have got to be kidding. Have you read the 14th Amendment? Where does it say that corporations are "persons"

Posted by: Mister X | January 21, 2010 at 04:40 PM

Interesting. Operative word from various trolls seems to be "Christ on a stick."

[JM Hanes]

Mister X:

You really should check out clarice's link to Chuck Schumer. He's the very model of the selective, hypocritical outrage you're looking so hard for here.

[centralcal]

I am seeing at NRO and Weekly Standard that Rep. Paul Ryan is saying Pelosi is gonna try for reconciliation to cram something from Obamacare through.

My gawd, their insanity is non-stop.

[centralcal]

Per Ryan:

I’ve spoken with many Democrats and the message is this: They’re not ready to give up. They’ve waited their entire adult lives for this moment and they aren’t ready to let 100,000 pesky votes in Massachusetts get in the way of fulfilling their destiny.

[Buford Gooch]

Ignatz | January 21, 2010 at 04:35

Still...trying...to...breathe.
Choked on my own spit, I was laughing so hard.

[Extraneus]

Great link on the execrable Schumer's interest in this, Clarice. They sure are squealing musically, to my ears.

[clarice]

Thanks, ext. I loved it, too.Notice how well this fits in with Henninger's wonderful wsj article on he end of the Kennedy era.

[clarice]

My article is finally up.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-death-blow-to-mccain-feingold/
LUN

[Thomas Collins]

It is disheartening that the decision wasn't unanimous. The restrictions struck down today are clearly unconstitutional.

Now, businesses such as the NY Times can continue to run their ads (which in NYTimesLand are still called news stories), but the playing field will be levelled, so that businesses not deemed to be the press may also run ads.

[Jane]

Wow - free speech is now judicial activism. How far we have sunk.