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: LindyBill who wrote (19393)	12/11/2003 7:36:12 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793698

Kaus thinks it isn't as dire as first thought. [worth clicking on the link - the paragraph is loaded with other links] Why am I not wildly upset by the Supreme Court's surprise opinion upholding virtually all of the McCain-Feingold law? Because the law turned out to not be as restrictive of speech as most people, including most of its editorial-page supporters, think it is: It doesn't prevent rich (and non-rich) individuals from banding together to spend as much money as they want on "independent" last-minute issue" ads that criticize or praise candidates by name--something that I'd argue is their right. It only bans them if they incorporate. ... I do think they should be able to incorporate (as non-profits) and enjoy the benefits of limited liability without giving up their speech rights. But it's not the end of the world if they can't. We'll soon see lots of unincorporated non-profits (yes, they can exist) springing up as vehicles for independent political advertising. ... Can the much-discussed "527" outfits qualify on these grounds too, gathering and spending unlimited contributions? Election law expert Rick Hasen says the answer is yes, and victorious McCain-Feingold defender Trevor Potter seems to agree. That's where the free speech will be, at least initially. ... It's also possible that some political non-profits will still be allowed to incorporate, because the Court apparently left open a loophole created for such corporations in the MCFL case. How big can an organization be and still qualify for the MCFL loophole? Nobody knows. But the question doesn't seem that important, since the 527s will be able to make themselves heard simply by not incorporating. ... slate.msn.com