# McCain-Feingold upheld **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 10, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175 "2003-12-10T17:41:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/1 "2003-12-10T17:41:06Z")
Here’s [the opinion.](http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/10dec20031140/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf) Haven’t read it yet; I’ll check back in after I do. Read and discuss. Sua ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/2 "2003-12-10T17:48:53Z")
Oh, Christ on a crutch, it’s a monster. Three separate majority opinions, each covering different parts of the campaign reform law. Five separate concurrences, dissents, or concurrences in part/dissents in part. This is going to be a bear to unravel. Sua ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/3 "2003-12-10T17:59:43Z")
What a tediously uninteresting and unnecessarily-complex piece of writing. No wonder our legal system is so messed up – people must train for years to be able to comprehend this garbage. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/4 "2003-12-10T19:32:10Z")
Not being a lawyer, can I assume as a man-in-the-street that if the career politicians and businesses are against it, it must be a good thing? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/5 "2003-12-10T20:37:36Z")
The good news is that you don’t have to unravel it if you don’t want to, **Sua**. Short version: McCain-Feingold is affirmed as the law of the land. I’m sure we’ve discussed it before. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/6 "2003-12-11T04:31:30Z")
Holy Flurgin Jawflapping! That’s a 298 page opinion with a syllabus, the brief summary of the decision, weighing in at 19 pages. Although it’s being reported as being a 5-4 decision, it seems to be a bit more complicated than that: > [@](#): > > STEVENS and O.CONNOR, JJ., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, in which O.CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined except with respect to BCRA §305, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §§304, 305, 307, 316, 319, and 403(b). BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Title V, in which STEVENS, O.CONNOR, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, and concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, except for BCRA §§311 and 318, concurring in the result with respect to BCRA §318, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II, and dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I, V, and §311, in which opinion SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, II.A, and II.B. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined, in which SCALIA, J., joined except to the extent the opinion upholds new FECA §323(e) and BCRA §202, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §213. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA §305, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined. Although I generally am interested in reading important Supreme Court decisions, I think I’ll give this one a pass. ---
**Author:** ![yguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/eb9ed0/32.png) [@yguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yguy)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/7 "2003-12-11T04:46:04Z")
So much for the first amendment. Betcha a dollar one of the looneytunes leftists cited international law. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/8 "2003-12-11T05:16:40Z")
You owe me a dollar. Send it to McCain’s re-election fund. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/9 "2003-12-11T06:00:07Z")
So, what real-world consequences can we expect to see, and when? ---
**Author:** ![dqa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dqa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dqa)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/10 "2003-12-11T06:26:48Z")
Not sure if this was written with a smirk, but I enjoyed it. > [@](#): > > …Congress’ ability to weigh competing constitutional interests in an area in which it enjoys particular expertise ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/11 "2003-12-11T13:09:58Z")
It takes a lot of pages to explain away “Congress shall pass no law”. Give me 298 pages and I can prove to you that the sky is gray. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/12 "2003-12-11T14:02:48Z")
:mad: This is a bad day for the first ammendment. I’d protest this during the next election, but I don’t think I’m allowed to anymore. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/13 "2003-12-11T14:24:28Z")
Why is this a bad day for the first amendment? Because of limits to contributions? Now the average american can’t contribute $100,000 to a fund? Gee, that sucks. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/14 "2003-12-11T14:55:27Z")
Where is the line between campaign contributions as free speech and campaign contributions as _quid pro quo_ drawn? If the likelihood of _quid pro quo_ goes up in direct proportion to the size of individual campaign contributions, is it acceptable to draw that line with legislation? “After this point, your free speech becomes a subtle bribe”? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/15 "2003-12-11T15:02:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*Why is this a bad day for the first amendment? Because of limits to contributions? Now the average american can’t contribute $100,000 to a fund? Gee, that sucks. \*\* Those people are hardly average, but that’s not what’s important. What’s important, and the reason why this violates the 1st Amendment, is that these people are not permitted to speak their mind any longer. Sure they’re biased. Sure they have an agenda. But you have an agenda, too. How would you like it if the moderators here limited you to one post a week in each forum, rather than the unfettered access you are used to? It doesn’t take a lawyer or Nobel prize winner to see that people have lost the ability to say what they want to whenever they want to about whatever they want to. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/16 "2003-12-11T15:18:10Z")
Since when does money have First Amendment rights? Is a corporation somehow entitled to a political opinion, and the means to effect that opinion? The struggle over enfranchisement has been with us since the Founding Fuckups. History buffs among you will recall that the right to vote was originally bestowed upon persons of proven substance and probity, to ensure that the common riff-raff didn’t get uppity. We did anyway. From that time, until our present day, that struggle is the very essence of the progressive movement in American politics. (Progressive, left-wing, liberal, Perfidious Liars[sup]TM[/sup]…whatever.) McCain-Feingold is a noble effort, and like most noble efforts, doomed. Money will out. But it is a step, however faltering, in the right direction. Finally, it is up to us to educate ourselves and our brethren, to listen skeptically, to ask ourselves just who the heck is the Citizen’s Committee for Patriotic Goodness (Glaxo, Citibank, Boeing…) and why they are so fervently committed to the continued tenure of Sen. Suckup. For further proof, one need only examine the career of Sen Phil Gramm (R-TX). (I recommend a pair of tongs so that you might keep it at arms length, so the slime does not drip on your shoes…) I refuse to accept the notion that a corporation has any right to a political opinion and the means to effect that opinion. (If you stand over the grave of Tom Paine, you will detect angry grumbling, but maybe yesterday a popping cork and a chuckle.) ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/17 "2003-12-11T15:20:02Z")
I contribute money to a political organization so that they can pool resources of like minded people like me and use them to influence politicians. Groups like the NRA, and the ACLU are now are prevented from free speech during certain times around an election. This is simply wrong. It’s the prevention of speech, not contributions. You know it’s a shitty law when the NRA and the ACLU both agree that it violates the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/18 "2003-12-11T15:25:14Z")
Well, I’m as radical on freedom of speech as the next whack-job (given what I do I’d better be) but, not being all that conversant in constitutional law I’d like to ask this question: Given that there’s ample precendent for placing limitations on the rights enumerated in the constitution (the old ‘yelling FIRE in a crowded theater’ thing) wouldn’t the reasoning be that the inherent corruption of the political process due to large-scale campaign dollars makes necessary these limitations as an available means of preventing corruption? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/19 "2003-12-11T15:31:32Z")
You mean that the government can tell people what they can and cannot say? But, it’s really for our own good. And, it’s only during an election. Scary. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/20 "2003-12-11T15:41:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF \* > **…What’s important, and the reason why this violates the 1st Amendment, is that these people are not permitted to speak their mind any longer.** Of course they are. Limits are placed in a somewhat fumbling attempt to achieve a kind of rough parity. A thought experiment, **AD**. We have, as you know, somewhat divergent political opinions. I will give you a box and a section of the public square. I get a $400,000 sound truck with 36 inch speakers and amplifiers that would make The Who sick with envy. Feel equal, do you? > [@](#): > > \*\*How would you like it if the moderators here limited you to one post a week in each forum, rather than the unfettered access you are used to? \*\* That would be one heck of a post, and I’d probably get in trouble for a blistering political diatribe posted in Cafe Society. No, I wouldn’t like it, but not for reasons of political parity, and political parity is what is crucial here. \*\* > [@](#): > > …It doesn’t take a lawyer or Nobel prize winner to see…\*\* I’m sure the lawyers lurking amongst us are flattered by the comparison. It is kind of you to lighten thier burden of calumny and disdain. > [@](#): > > \*\*…that people have lost the ability to say what they want to whenever they want to about whatever they want to. \*\* But you just did. As did I. Ain’t it cool? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175.md?page=2)