# 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:** 4
**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, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/61 "2003-12-12T01:14:57Z")
Here’s Thomas’ wording, in his dissent, of the idea suggested by Scalia quoted in **Age Quod Agis** ’s post above. > [@](#): > > Apparently, the marketplace of ideas is to be fully open only > to defamers, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 > (1964); nude dancers, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. > 560 (1991) (plurality opinion); pornographers, Ashcroft v. > Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234 (2002); flag burners, > United States v. Eichman, 496 U. S. 310 (1990); and cross > burners, Virginia v. Black, 538 U. S. \_\_\_ (2003). ---
**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, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/62 "2003-12-12T01:17:20Z")
Interesting. From the Bank vs Bellotti > [@](#): > > Even if it were permissible to silence one segment of society upon a sufficient showing of imminent danger, **there has been no showing that the relative voice of corporations has been overwhelming or even significant in influencing referenda in Massachusetts, or that there has been any threat to the confidence of the citizenry in government**. Emphasis added again. Now the question is: is it legal anyway (to address the unbolded portion)? Is the relative voice of corporations overwhelming (to address the bolded portion)? In the meantime, back to the 300-page decision. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/63 "2003-12-12T01:22:43Z")
Justice Antonio “Fat Tony” Scalia is about as slippery as a catfish in a vat of bacon grease! Drags in both child porno and regular porno with a straight face, as if the issues were even remotely related. And then, without even so much as a smirk, he sheds the tears crockodilian for the erosion of the people’s right to criticize the government. Imagine my surprise, to see a dormant streak of anti-authoritarianism rise from the most rigid martinet ever to stain the Court with his presence. Feh! as they say in Lubbock. ---
**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, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/64 "2003-12-12T01:25:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > There’s that silly word again, **people**. Not, “… people _and the arbitrary groups they form_.” You’re dancing around my question. Here it is again: “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?” To say that groups of people don’t have rights is semantical doubletalk. To say that a group may not perform a certain action is to say that the people which comprise it may not perform certain actions. With that in mind, kindly point to the section of the Constitution which prohibits any person or persons from acting in such a way as I have described. ---
**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, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/65 "2003-12-12T01:30:52Z")
Justice Scalia is the only person _on_ this Court right now with sincere respect for the US Constitution, except maybe for Justice Thomas. The 5 who wrote and sided with the majority opinion here are notorious for using the bench to advance their own social agendas, and you can add Kennedy to that mix as often as not, as well as Rehnquist. From my readings in Constitutional Law class, Admin Law class, and elsewhere in my stay at law school, I think Scalia and Thomas are the only ones who remain consistent in their rulings, whereas everybody else just shifts with the wind, ruling one way one day and another the next to serve whatever special interest agenda has gripped their fervor. I can easily say I have more respect for Justices Scalia and Thomas than I do for all 7 other Justices combined. If anyone is slippery and deceitful, it’s those 7. ---
**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, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/66 "2003-12-12T01:42:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > \*\*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. \*\* Yes, but a big part of the reason for that is that, while we haven’t yet placed limits on how much candidates can _spend_, we’ve effectively placed limits on how much they can _raise_. The requirement that campaigns be funded with small (\<$2,000) contributions is hell on challengers, and the incumbent re-election rates prove it. The only reason Senate challengers have had _slightly_ greater success than House challengers is because the parties have been able to recruit enough multi-millionaires who can legally spend their own money (Maria Cantwell, Peter Fitzgerald, John Edwards, Herb Kohl, Jon Corzine). If you seal off this loop-hole with _spending limits_, you’ll make a seat in Congress equivalent to a judgeship–a lifetime sinecure. A “system where you can spend what you like” favors challengers because incumbents have automatic prior name recognition, the power to disburse public money, the _franking privilege_ of sending free direct mail, and get _free media coverage_ by virtue of their incumbency, and challengers need to counter all of that. Challengers need to spend _more money_ than incumbents. ---
**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, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/67 "2003-12-12T01:43:37Z")
**jklann** > [@](#): > > A “system where you can spend what you like” favors challengers… It favors the wealthy, period. ---
**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, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/68 "2003-12-12T02:12:14Z")
> [@](#): > > _elucidator:_ > Imagine my surprise, to see a dormant streak of anti-authoritarianism rise from the most rigid martinet ever to stain the Court with his presence. Actually, Scalia is consistently anti-authoritarian on free speech issues (except obscenity, which I guess doesn’t really have anything to do with authority . . . unless you’re into S&M . . . but I digress). For example, he voted to strike down the laws prohibiting flag burning in _Texas v. Johnson_. > [@](#): > > _elucidator:_ > Feh! as they say in Lubbock. You’ve been to Lubbock? Flat, windy, brown, dusty, bad-tasting water, and . . . [gasp!] conservative! It must have been like your own personal hell! > [@](#): > > _erislover:_ > It favors the wealthy, period. Well then, let’s just get rid of all political speech. That will certainly level the playing field, won’t it? . . . But wait, maybe free speech and the free market are too important to our way of life to dispose of so haphazardly. Maybe the system is unfair, but it’s better than the statist alternatives. Maybe we should think about this . . . Nah. Just bring everyone down to my level. That would be best. ---
**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, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/69 "2003-12-12T02:30:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*It favors the wealthy, period. \*\* If the choice is between a system in which wealthy people run against each other (or fund non-wealthy people to run against each other) in competitive elections, versus a system in which career politicians enjoy lifetime sinecures, I’ll take the former. ---
**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 12, 2003, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/70 "2003-12-12T02:33:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > Justice Scalia is the only person _on_ this Court right now with sincere respect for the US Constitution, except maybe for Justice Thomas. Ya know (and this goes out not only to **RexDart** , but to all of those in this thread who bewail The End of the Constitution), this discussion might be ever so much more _productive_ if we didn’t just turn it into a partisan pissing match over who’s holier than whom. 'Cause if you want to take that path, I’ll take Souter and O’Connor over Fat Tony and Mini-Me any day of the week, and I can cuss and piss and moan about it _way_ better than you. Just sayin’, is all. ---
**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, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/71 "2003-12-12T03:08:02Z")
**Age Quod Agis** , why take it there? All I said was “spending as much as you want favors the rich.” It has nothing to do with abolishing all political speech. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/72 "2003-12-12T04:16:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > 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”. Well, I guess that is one vote for rule by the wealthy. (If **elucidator** had written the above paragraph as parody of a conservative’s position on this issue, I would have complimented him but said it was a bit over the top.) And, boy, I just can’t help but admire those Scalia’s and Thomas’s on our High Court who have no agenda whatsoever, but simply base their opinions on what is manifestly right and correct. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/73 "2003-12-12T04:23:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > **… (If elucidator had written the above paragraph…** Well, you’ve put your finger on it, **jshore**. No matter how sarcastic I can be, I still can’t keep up. ---
**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, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/74 "2003-12-12T05:19:17Z")
> [@](#): > > _erislover:_ > Age Quod Agis, why take it there? All I said was “spending as much as you want favors the rich.” It has nothing to do with abolishing all political speech. I agree that spending as much as you want favors the rich. I took umbrage with the fact that you said it favors the rich, **period** , as though there’s really nothing else to the issue. My point is that there is a lot more to the issue than just who ends up with the advantages in our system. We should consider all the factors, and not just who’s the easiest villain. > [@](#): > > _minty green:_ > Ya know (and this goes out not only to RexDart, but to all of those in this thread who bewail The End of the Constitution), this discussion might be ever so much more productive if we didn’t just turn it into a partisan pissing match over who’s holier than whom. 'Cause if you want to take that path, I’ll take Souter and O’Connor over Fat Tony and Mini-Me any day of the week, and I can cuss and piss and moan about it way better than you. I sincerely hope this wasn’t directed at me. First of all, I don’t think anyone here is arguing that this is the end of the Constitution. It was a shockingly piss-poor decision that ignored clear constitutional precepts, but it’s certainly not the end of the road. And I think I’ll resist the temptation to bow down before your ability to craft a purty phrase. No matter what you saw in “The Princess Diaries,” you can dress up the ugly girl, but I’m not taking her to the dance. And seriously, can we cut it with the derogatory nicknames for people we don’t like? Every time I read “Shrub” or “the Smirk,” I feel like I’m back in the 3rd grade. You’re obviously intelligent, and you obviously have enough confidence in your writing ability to boast about it here. So I’m confused by the fact that you’re willing to stoop to this level, which you must know leaves others with the impression that your opinions are guided by personal animosity rather than reason. I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that you’re a deeper thinker than that, but please, won’t someone think of the newbies? ---
**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 12, 2003, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/75 "2003-12-12T06:13:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Age Quod Agis \* > It was a shockingly piss-poor decision that ignored clear constitutional precepts Which ones would those be? _Buckley v. Valejo_, which established three decades ago that Congress had the power to regulate campaign money? Please, tell us which Supreme Court opinions were overturned in this decision. > [@](#): > > And I think I’ll resist the temptation to bow down before your ability to craft a purty phrase. No matter what you saw in “The Princess Diaries,” you can dress up the ugly girl, but I’m not taking her to the dance. Feh. Just goes to show you’ve lost all objectivity. The chick in “The Princess Diaries” was _hot_. She was just “Hollywood ugly,” like Julia Roberts in “America’s Sweethearts.” > [@](#): > > And seriously, can we cut it with the derogatory nicknames for people we don’t like? Every time I read “Shrub” or “the Smirk,” I feel like I’m back in the 3rd grade. Certainly. If folks avoid idiotic statements like how Scalia is the only Justice with any respect for the Constitution, then I will refrain from calling him Fat Tony. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that you’re a deeper thinker than that, but please, won’t someone think of the newbies? The newbies will be better served by enganging the bloody issues instead of whining about whose judge has the biggest dick. Not that you fell into that trap, but even so. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/76 "2003-12-12T06:31:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > **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.** You don’t see a difference because you are ignoring the arguments of the other side. Our complaint is that money politics denies those with less money an equal say in government. The difference is that just about everyone has at least an hour of free time a day so the most advantage one could have in hours is 24:1 whereas the wealth inequity in this nation is a much higher ratio. Think of it this way: the only way money politics can be equal is if we redistributed property to everyone equally. > [@](#): > > \*\*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. \*\* I see. You do want those with less money to have less, or no, influence on government. I wish every opponent of campaign finance reform were as honest as you. ---
**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, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/77 "2003-12-12T11:30:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 2sense \* > \*\* You do want those with less money to have less, or no, influence on government. > I wish every opponent of campaign finance reform were as honest as you. \*\* Why thank you, sir. I pride myself in being honest and consistent with every position I advocate on these boards, even when my position is waaaaaaaay out of the mainstream. Anyways, not “no” influence, as they get the same vote. Frankly I think we should restrict the franchise to people who own property (which wouldn’t include me right now, btw), but I’m willing to accept the franchise as it is so long as those with the means to do so are free to disseminate their ideas on the marketplace unhindered. ---
**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, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/78 "2003-12-12T13:47:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jklann \* > \*\*…incumbents have automatic prior name recognition, the power to disburse public money, the _franking privilege_ of sending free direct mail, and get _free media coverage_ by virtue of their incumbency, and challengers need to counter all of that. Challengers need to spend _more money_ than incumbents. \*\* I see that you do not recognize “Throw the bums out” as a time-honored part of American electioneering. Incumbency in itself is not an automatic ticket to re-election. Put the incumbent and challenger(s) on an equal financial footing and see what happens. A bizarre irony in this debate (and this thread) is that posters on the left/Democrats tend to favor the S.C. decision while the "free speech argument is mostly associated with more conservative views - but at least in the short term Democrats (with a little more reliance on soft money) will be hurt worse. _“…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.”_ You know, this has an odd appeal… ---
**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 12, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/79 "2003-12-12T14:37:38Z")
The thing that riles me the most about **RexDart’s** CapitalistGods rhetoric is that it makes the supposition that the things you do and the money you make somehow earn you more political representation. This. is. not. so! All men are created equal. All citizens are equal in the eyes of the law. If there’s one thing this country is founded on it’s not free speech, it’s not free assembly, it’s not free religion. It’s the equality of the people under the law. The homeless man has the same political importance as Bill Gates. One man, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote. There’s a word for government dominated by the rich. And it’s not “democracy”… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175/80 "2003-12-12T14:40:19Z")
Texas? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-feingold-upheld/218175.md?page=5)