Appeals court overturns campaign finance rules
 

...WASHINGTON ? Independent advocacy groups will be able to spend more money to try to influence federal elections under a decision Friday from a federal appeals court that overturned rules limiting nonprofits' campaign spending.

Three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington agreed with Emily's List, a nonprofit that backs women Democratic candidates who support abortion rights, that the regulations limited free speech rights.

The Federal Election Commission enacted the rules in 2005, after concerns were raised about the amount of unlimited "soft money" contributions used to fund attacks in the 2004 election.

The FEC said nonprofits would have to pay for political activities involving federal candidates using limited "hard money" contributions. Individuals are only allowed to donate up to $5,000 annually to a nonprofit that indicates it plans to use the money to support or oppose a federal candidate.

"The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protects the right of individual citizens to spend unlimited amounts to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office," the court ruling said. The First Amendment also "safeguards the right of citizens to band together and pool their resources as an unincorporated group or nonprofit organization in order to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office."

The opinion was written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was nominated in 2006 by President George W. Bush after working as his aide in the White House, and supported by Judge Karen Henderson, nominated by President Ronald Reagan. Janice Rogers Brown, also a Bush nominee, agreed with the conclusion but wrote a separate opinion that criticized the majority for its sweeping interpretation of First Amendment issues.

FEC spokeswoman Judith Ingram said the agency was studying the opinion and had not decided whether to appeal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...mpaign_finance

Good thing...bad thing?

Tens of millions campaigning for a job that pays a few hundred grand says it all.


.

I have no idea what the point of your statement is supposed to be.

seems pretty obvious and precise ....

Anymore input?

While I agree that it is free speech and if I want to I should be allowed to pay to air a commercial supporting a candidate I like or attacking a candidate I don't like I fear that often these non-profit groups that end up raising and spending a lot of 'soft money' are organized by people from the major parties so they basically just end up being an extension of on candidates campaign. If these groups want to raise and spend money, find, but there should be rules in place that they have no contact or influence from any candidate and/or their party/campaign.

Well...there may be rules in place about contact...I don't know...but wouldn't that be an even greater violation of free speech...if they can't have contact with a candidate/party/campaign?

I don't think they shouldn't be allowed contact, but the candidate or their people shouldn't be allowed to tell these groups what to say and how to run their campaign. To me free speech is if I have something I want to say so I buy a commercial and say it. It isn't so much that I buy some air time and then do whatever the candidate tells me to do.

I have a bad feeling about this...