Supreme Court Hands Down Key Campaign Finance Decision

While this is good news there is still McCain Feingold out there that needs to be destroyed. Along with the political careers of the sponsors… Partial overturns are meaningless.

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, removing unconstitutional restrictions on the NRA’s ability to speak freely at election time.

The late Sen. Paul Wellstone had said during the original debate over this legislation that it was his intention to silence groups like the NRA. While the author of this measure had singled out the NRA, this law delivered a clear message to all American citizens: “Keep your mouths shut and stay out of our political debates.”

Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said, “This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us. The majesty of free speech is that any American can roll out of bed and speak as freely as The New York Times, NBC or politicians. This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom. Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”

The case originally centered on the FEC’s denial of Citizens United’s attempt to broadcast a film about Hillary Clinton through on-demand cable services in January 2008, but had broader implications in protecting the First Amendment rights of organizations like the NRA during election time.

Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA chief lobbyist, said, “This decision today returns sanity to our political system. The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws denying Americans the right to speak out on issues, the right to assemble or organize on public policy issues, or the right to petition our government for redress of grievances.”

SOURCE

Tags: , , , , , ,

One Response to “Supreme Court Hands Down Key Campaign Finance Decision”

  1. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Related: source Patriot Post

    Halls of Justice: SCOTUS Overturns Part of McCain-Feingold

    The Supreme Court of the United States overturned two precedents and struck down limits on corporate political spending in a 5-4 ruling this week, with the usual suspects in dissent. The Court found that at least part of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain-Feingold, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting corporations from funding political ads leading up to an election.

    As The Wall Street Journal reports, “The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated in a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, wanted to promote the film, but the election commission called it an ‘electioneering communication’ subject to McCain-Feingold restrictions.” In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the law.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 57-page opinion, “The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”

    Additionally, of requiring that money be funneled through political action committees — those now-hated 527s — Kennedy wrote, “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful.”

    Barack Obama called the decision a victory for Wall Street, Big Oil and other special interests hated by the Left, and he promised to work with Congress on a “forceful response.” That’s nothing but hypocrisy coming from the first major-party presidential candidate to reject public funds, opting instead to run solely on money from special interests.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: