Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (1902)	6/5/2003 4:38:41 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793883

The "guy" running the editorial page is Gail Collins Collins was the one mentioned. Couldn't pull up the name. I bet on Marty Baron , former Times associate managing editor and currently the editor of The Boston Globe, which the Times owns.

To: JohnM who wrote (1902)	6/5/2003 6:43:04 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793883

Court to Hear Campaign Finance Challenge By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS - NEW YORK TIMES WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Thursday it will hold a special session in September to hear arguments on the constitutionality of a law meant to govern how candidates raise money in the 2004 presidential and congressional elections. The court will meet Sept. 8, a month ahead of the start of its regular term. In apparent acknowledgment of the complexity of the case, the court will hear four hours of argument instead of the usual one hour. The 2002 law bans corporate, union and unlimited contributions -- known as soft money -- to national party committees. It also bars a range of interest groups, including those financed with corporate or union money and those that do not disclose their donors, from airing ads mentioning federal candidates in their districts in the month before a primary and two months before a general election. A complex lower court ruling upheld parts of the law and struck down others. That ruling spawned 12 separate appeals to the Supreme Court, covering some 80 groups or individuals and nearly two dozen legal questions. Out of that tangle, the high court organized the parties into two sides and set out when each must file its legal papers. The high court will have the last word on the new rules, which are already in effect. The case is unlike nearly all others the high court hears. First, the court did not have its customary choice about whether to hear the case. Supreme Court review was written right into the law when Congress passed it. Because of the complexity of the lower court ruling, there was not a clear winner and loser when the case was appealed. Ordinarily, the losing side or a lower court case appeals to the Supreme Court, and frames the legal questions the court it wants the court to review. The winner at the lower court level can then respond, usually urging the court to leave the lower court ruling in place. In the campaign finance case, neither side wanted to go first. The Bush administration is defending the law and proposed the strategy the court ultimately chose. Those challenging various provision of the law will lodge their complaints first, followed by the government defenders of the law -- the Federal Election Commission and six members of Congress. That will consolidate all complaints against the law, and allow the government to defend it as a whole, Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the court in a filing last week. Under that approach, the lower court's nearly 1,700-page ruling is essentially irrelevant. Last month Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist turned down a request from interest groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and the Club for Growth to lift the law's restrictions on political ads until the high court considers whether the limits are constitutional. ``An act of Congress is presumed to be constitutional ... and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act should remain in effect until the disposition of this case by the Supreme Court,'' Rehnquist wrote then. The case is McConnell v. FEC, 02-1674. ^------ On the Net: Supreme Court: supremecourtus.gov Campaign finance background: fec.gov nytimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (1902)	6/6/2003 1:51:49 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793883

I caught Ken on his first day home in a while, He was grateful for our concern, and said he had not read the thread in a month. His wife was handing out Trophies at the Graduation ceremonies today for her chemistry fair. She had gone to the Athletic Case and measured the individual trophies that were handed out, and bought bigger ones for the Chem winners. Wanted to see the kids get something better than a pin. I told him that would really piss off the coaches! He got a book called "Opera 101," and is busy listening to the various Operas. Never liked them before. Very nice guy, as we both know.