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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (129270)	1/26/2010 7:43:50 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Respond to of 542009

Can Congress do anything about the court's decision? Sure it can take another stab at similar legislation. The statute in question made it a felony (as serious as it gets) to make "electioneering" type communications under certain circumstances. If you are going to charge a person (corporations are persons) with a felony you better make it damn clear exactly what actions will trigger the felony indictment. When drafting legislation that can limit fundamental rights you have to be VERY clear to define what is permissible and what is not under the statute ... otherwise a statute meant to address non-protected speech can "chill" protected speech ... a statute that is worded in an overly broad manner is pretty much begging to be struck down ... wtf is "electioneering"? .... so Congress could always take another stab at it and, knowing why the court struck down the 2002 statute, try to do a better job this time around. It was a close 5-4 decision so it's entirely possible Congress could pass a new statute that would sway Justice Kennedy to the other side.

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (129270)	1/26/2010 7:49:15 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 542009

looking at pre-2002 politics and 2002-2010 politics, I can't see all that much of a difference. As I mentioned upstream, it remains to be seen how much of an impact this will make. I'm a believer in the ability of deep-pocketed and motivated players to find a way to do whatever they want. It may be well be that there won't be much of an increase in activity because it's been happening all along, just not out in the open. While this change has the potential to draw big bucks into political ads, folks may be hollering before they're hurt.

To: Travis_Bickle who wrote (129270)	1/26/2010 1:12:39 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542009

>>The law the SCOTUS struck down was enacted in 2002 ... so "until now" means the period between enactment in 2002 and January 21, 2010.<< There are implications in the decision that go beyond that specific law.