# 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:** 3
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/41 "2003-12-11T21:51:49Z")
You know what? Money isn’t just bad for politics. It’s bad for justice. Looking at the stats on punishments for crimes would clearly show that the richer a person is, the less likely they are to go to jail for the same crimes as a poor person. Anyone able to hire Johnny Cochran to lead the defense has an unfair advantage to a poor shmuck stuck with a public defender. To even out the playing field, why don’t we start limiting the rights of anybody with a net worth of, oh, over a million dollars. Just to make it fair, mind you. Lets drop 4th amendment protections for these rich fat cats. Since they are no longer able to question police searches and warrants the fact that they are rich will be neutralized. The playing field will be leveled for all. Or, we can just apply constitutional protection to everyone. No matter how much we think we are helping by limiting it because of the inherent evil of money being a part of the system. ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/42 "2003-12-11T22:21:57Z")
**Debaser** , did you ever feel like you were just sliding down a long, tractionless slope? ---
**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, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/43 "2003-12-11T22:22:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > 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? What’s the difference? The first amendment wasn’t meant to guarantee me an audience equal to anyone else’s. Not every point of view deserves equal representation. Taken to its logical conclusion, the contrary view would have the KKK given equal time with the Democrat party by law. Effectively, the government would be favoring the KKK by giving it more credence than it could ever earn through its own efforts. The best you could hope for is a media that no one with any brains would listen to. ---
**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, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/44 "2003-12-11T22:29:20Z")
We’ll get the money out of politics about the time we get the wetness out of water. Money is only the means by which those who possess it gain the attention of politicians and the electorate. If it isn’t dollars, francs or yen, it’ll be blowjobs. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/45 "2003-12-11T22:58:09Z")
Political advertisements _are_ bad for politics: they try to reduce everything down to a 30-second sound bite. No position worth taking on any issue can be adequetely explained in 30 seconds of TV time. It’s lowest-common-denominator politics. It encourages attack ads (it’s a lot easier to say “The Democrats didn’t like the war on Iraq, so they love terrorism!” in 30 seconds than it is to explain that Iraq and terrorism are separate issues and that a position on one is not necessarily contingent upon the position on the other). I think all TV ads should be barred during national campaigns as detrimental to the public good. Candidates should each be given 30 minute blocks of TV time each week, and there should be ten three-hour long, free form debates. No 90-second answers, no questions from panels or – even worse – from a studio audience of drooling, imbecilic “average Americans.” Let the candidates grill each other, each debate relegated to no more than three issues. Require all networks to air them as part of their broadcast license requirements. That’d do a world more of good for public debate in this country than 30-second spots ever could, with or without the McCain Law. ---
**Author:** ![MrTuffPaws](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MrTuffPaws](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrTuffPaws)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/46 "2003-12-11T23:11:32Z")
Debaser: Your political speech is not limited at all. You and I both can write letters and place phone calls to any candidate, or official that we see fit. We can also contribute money to said officials or candidates. This law limits groups. Do groups get the same rights as you and I? Last time I checked, the bill of rights applied to individuals and not groups. Time to suck it up and make the grass roots work again. ---
**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, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/47 "2003-12-11T23:21:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrTuffPaws \* > **This law limits groups. Do groups get the same rights as you and I? Last time I checked, the bill of rights applied to individuals and not groups.** You don’t understand. The Bill of Rights never granted anyone any rights. It is a restriction on the ability of government to infringe on those rights. Therefore, groups have every bit as much right to free speech as individuals. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/48 "2003-12-11T23:28:02Z")
I don’t quite see how that deductively follows, **yguy**. I have the right to vote. You have the right to vote. We don’t get together and come up with a third vote. ---
**Author:** ![MrTuffPaws](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MrTuffPaws](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrTuffPaws)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2003, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/49 "2003-12-11T23:40:52Z")
Erislover: Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![yguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/eb9ed0/32.png) [@yguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yguy)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/50 "2003-12-12T00:07:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*I don’t quite see how that deductively follows, **yguy**. I have the right to vote. You have the right to vote. We don’t get together and come up with a third vote. \*\* I don’t see the connection. The BOR does not grant rights, it recognizes rights which are inherent, and prevents government infringement of them. That being the case, non-governmental groups have the right to free speech, as it is not elsewhere denied by the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/51 "2003-12-12T00:24:11Z")
People have rights. The bill of rights expresses what the government can or cannot do to people. Groups are not people. Can you vote, I vote, _and_ we vote? If not, then as you can see groups are different than people. Which, I dare say, is obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/52 "2003-12-12T00:34:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* 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. \*\* This should scare the snot out of every decent American. But I agree with **elucidator** and **minty green** (END TIMES! REPENT!!). Money is not speech. Restraining certain sorts of spending on behalf of greater fairness in the election process does not conjure up the Gulag for me. Of course, the Internet and other non-regulated loopholes abound and will make McCain-Feingold increasingly irrelevant. Much as I loathe the idea, I am beginning to lean towards public financing of all campaigns. With strict spending limits. No limit, though, on how many rallies you can appear at, how many newsworthy speeches you can make, and how many eager volunteers you can inspire with your message. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/53 "2003-12-12T00:41:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Since when does money have First Amendment rights? Is a corporation somehow entitled to a political opinion, and the means to effect that opinion? > > \*\* Suppose I want to support a candidate. I _could_ go down to his office and volunteer my time. If I didn’t have much spare time, I could pay somebody to go down and volunteer. I see no substantive difference, therefore, between giving a candidate your time and giving him your money. Since giving him your time would be treated as protected political speech, giving him your money must be similiarly protected. And now, my more visceral response: Grass roots efforts will never serve anybody’s interests except the gaggle of mindless idiots who never want anything but to raid the gov’t coffers to line their own pockets…in other words, the “common man”. To get widespread grass roots support you either have to be a moral busybody or a populist. The wealthy make this country what it is, and those no good little leeches who feed off of them get garbage like this passed so that the nation’s greatest producers are reduced in political voice to the level of some schmoe who works at the gas station. We already have an almost unlimited franchise (and see how poorly _that_ has worked out), one person one vote, but now it’s “one person one dollar”. Democracy has failed, and this is proof. I can only hope there’s a nice Scalia dissent buried in that opinion somewhere to lighten my mood before I get back to studying for my Admin Law final tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![yguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/eb9ed0/32.png) [@yguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yguy)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/54 "2003-12-12T00:43:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > People have rights. The bill of rights expresses what the government can or cannot do to people. Groups are not people. They’re not? > [@](#): > > Can you vote, I vote, _and_ we vote? If not, then as you can see groups are different than people. Which, I dare say, is obvious. And just how do you get from there to the idea that people have no right to pool their resources, appoint spokespeople, and propagate their message as widely as possible? Unless such a restriction can be found in the Constitution, it would seem to come under the protection of the first, ninth and tenth amendments. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/55 "2003-12-12T00:53:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > **Much as I loathe the idea, I am beginning to lean towards public financing of all campaigns. With strict spending limits.** Ah yes, incumbents will love that. Incumbents do newsworthy things. They are covered by the press and appear on TV all the time. They will **love** it when they can command free coverage and their opponents are limited in how much they can spend.\*\* > [@](#): > > No limit, though, on how many rallies you can appear at, how many newsworthy speeches you can make . . . \*\* So the press decides what is newsworthy, and can write and broadcast as much as they want. But if **I** want to spread my message, and need to spend money to do so, I go to jail. I don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/56 "2003-12-12T00:54:46Z")
The First Amendment _Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._ Is interfering with commercials restricting the freedom of **the press**? No. Is setting contribution limits? No. Are we forbidden from **peaceable assembly**? No. Are **you** forbidden from public speech? No. Well, so much for the first. The Ninth Amendment _The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people._ Oh, **people**! Not “… people _and the arbitrary groups they form_.” The Tenth Amendment _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people._ There’s that silly word again, **people**. Not, “… people _and the arbitrary groups they form_.” ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/57 "2003-12-12T01:01:16Z")
**Erislover** , see: First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765 (1978) NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415 For proposition that corporations hold the same First Amendment rights as individual persons. It’s a settled issue of law. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/58 "2003-12-12T01:05:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jklann \* > **Ah yes, incumbents will love that. Incumbents do newsworthy things. They are covered by the press and appear on TV all the time. They will love it when they can command free coverage and their opponents are limited in how much they can spend.** Somehow I just don’t see a system where you can spend what you like as favoring challengers. Incumbents’ re-election bids in recent years have been successful a huge portion of the time. \*\* So the press decides what is newsworthy, and can write and broadcast as much as they want. But if **I** want to spread my message, and need to spend money to do so, I go to jail. I don’t like it. \*\* [/QUOTE] The moral is, find ways to spread the word that don’t require huge spending on attack ads. Takes imagination and an inspiring message, which will be tough for some politicos. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/59 "2003-12-12T01:08:26Z")
Thanks, **RexDart**. From [_Button_](http://www.dadsnow.org/legal/button.htm): > [@](#): > > (d) In order to find constitutional protection for the kind of cooperative, organizational activity disclosed by this record, it is not necessary to subsume such activity under a narrow, literal conception of freedom of speech, petition or assembly, **for there is no longer any doubt that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain forms of orderly group activity.** Emphasis added. Which forms, though? Is this overturning previously established ideas or further defining them? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/60 "2003-12-12T01:11:27Z")
> [@](#): > > _elucidator:_ > 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. I totally agree that as long as money plays a part in politics, it will result in inequities. Right now, some groups can buy the $400,000 gold-plated sound truck (NRA, AARP), while others can barely afford a newspaper to twist into a megaphone. But McCain-Feingold “cures” this problem, not by giving the poorer groups more access to better outlets to publicize their speech, and not even by forcing the richer groups to use only twisted up newspapers. McCain-Feingold’s “cure” is to say that no one can speak at all. So in order to cut off “bad speech” – specifically, “attack ads” and the allegedly corrupting influence of money – McC-F cuts off **all** speech. I think that’s facially overbroad. But more than that, it’s a rejection of the principle that the cure for “bad speech” is more speech. I seem to remember some poster ( **Diogenes**?) whose sig line was something like “There is nothing more beautiful than freedom of speech.” I have no idea what happened to that sentiment. My problems with McC-F are myriad, including the fact that I think it will be ineffective at stopping attack ads, leaves us to the major media outlets’ mercy for getting our information (Do you really want to rely on Fox for your campaign news?), and I think it’s naive to beleive that it will somehow make our politicians impervious to the influence of money. But my biggest problem is that I don’t see how the same Court which has repeatedly said that political speech is the most important and protected kind of speech, can now uphold a regulation **banning** political speech within 60 days of an election? I’m sure I’ll get lambasted for even posting his name, but here, in a [paragraph from Justice Scalia](http://www.nationalreview.com/document/scalia200312111301.asp), is what I wish I’d said about this legislation: > [@](#): > > Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography . . ., tobacco advertising . . . , dissemination of illegally intercepted communications . . . , and sexually explicit cable programming . . . , would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national-party use of “soft” money to fund “issue ads” that incumbents find so offensive. And for those that say that spending money isn’t free speech, please see **Buckley v. Valeo** , 424 U.S. 1, 16 (1976): > [@](#): > > “this Court has never suggested that the dependence of a communication on the expenditure of money operates itself to introduce a nonspeech element or to reduce the exacting scrutiny required by the First Amendment.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175.md?page=4)