SUPPRESSION OF ELECTION TIME SPEECH               
Wednesday, December 17, 2003

In a disappointing 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some key provisions of the 2002 “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance reform that was intended to weaken the influence of money in politics.

The Supreme Court supported the law’s ban on so-called “soft money” or what is known as unlimited donation’s to political parties.

There was a loophole in the Watergate era campaign regulations that allowed corporations and unions to contribute to campaigns and enabled individuals to somehow escape federal caps on donations.

This action by the U.S. Supreme Court was another frustrating ruling. The “soft money” contributions were always tainted with corruption so there was a general opinion that a “soft money” ban on unlimited donations should be upheld.

However, in the 300-page ruling the court also upheld a ban on political alerts by special interests groups 60 days before Election Day, which should have been overturned.

In other words, conservative advocacy groups like Family Concerns, America Family Association or Focus on the Family and even liberal groups like
Planned Parenthood will be prevented from running ads 30 to 60 days before
an election.

The court did not protect the Constitutional right of advocacy groups, and they will be shut out of being free to voice their views and their opinions on the issues that are so critical to elections.

A twist in this decision gave minors the right to make monetary contributions to political campaigns. This, according to the Supreme Court, constituted free speech for minors, but it sounds like the anti-family rhetoric of the United Nations. The U.N. is always for giving rights to the child, rights they don’t need, while removing rights from parents.

So here is another decision where freedom of speech suffers again.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy offered a powerful dissent
to the decision! Scalia wrote: “The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and under the Constitution that requires periodic elections that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech”.

And that’s what we have; “suppression of election-time speech.” And guess whose vote was the swing vote to remove a little more freedom of speech? You guessed it, Sandra Day O’Conner.

What would our Founding Fathers say?