White House boasts: We 'control' news (WorldNetDaily.com) Read their article. What else do you want to know? Who is "We"; what is legal "control", what is legal "news", is this a conspiracy, and is thre anything else "We The People Should Know"; or where and when can we hear and read the news and make our own decision ?
i'm sure, the right decision was made because we believe in freedom of speech no matter how abhorrent someone's views are
Required field must not be blank: Mr./s. President i.e.{Zapf Chancery} !
Continuing the "2008", "2009, 2010, 2011,", "2012 politics", wondering, Is it really "Just Plain" Politics?
"The Red, White, and Blue, Blog"
ABOVE Each POST's Title :
Post's DATE-Preceeds in Victory Red
Post Titles-"#001776"
<><> Links- Hover(mouse over text turns Gold
SHARED CONTENT(BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS DATABASE LINK TimeSeries/LNS14000000 )
Blogger's Profiles Population Location United States": 2,310,000 3,160,000 (April/5th/2010 8,670,000)(October 18th, 2010 6,120,000); Now results total Listed In This Location , December 6th, 2010 Results Total 10,700,000 LATE OCTOBER 2015 = 1 of 6,600_
Monday, October 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
United States Of America, President
The Challenge of The Voters is That, Over-All, It Is "Our Vote", that counts!
...oooh, it seems that "Our" in "Our Vote" could come down to "Our" Judicial Branch decisions that could put any election results into, one, a position to be revoted on by "Our" Congress, limiting their's to the Judicial Branch approved candidates of "Our's", which would limit the possibility to gain the popular candidate's victory (simply because there are less people in congress than when "our" vote is counted with their's) and therfore to give us a result of a victor of a more narrowed representation to that of the influences in likes with the majority of citizens; "Us"; or two, a New Nationwide Vote for "Us" all, to be "Our President".
In Short: This is NOT Over Yet And "We" "Are Not" "Hearing Yeah Or Neah About This:" At "ALL" From (Our) "Reliable News Sources" ...YET...?
ISN'T THIS IMPORTANT? DOES IT MATTER: WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG OR WHAT WE BELIEVE:
This post related the lack of reporting on the topic of "qualification by citizenship and candidates proven, proofs, and scrutiny of credabilty and public opinion; including whether the qualification is more an honorary custom or a definitive law?...:
When Do They Set Up 24 hours a day at a Court House To "REPORT?" ?; or should ""WE", "really"", ...care.
Or is it reallyJust Plain Politics?
2008 politics""
United States Blogger Population Profiles-"Location-United States":2,310,000 3,160,000 (April/5th/2010 Now 8,670,000 )_
...oooh, it seems that "Our" in "Our Vote" could come down to "Our" Judicial Branch decisions that could put any election results into, one, a position to be revoted on by "Our" Congress, limiting their's to the Judicial Branch approved candidates of "Our's", which would limit the possibility to gain the popular candidate's victory (simply because there are less people in congress than when "our" vote is counted with their's) and therfore to give us a result of a victor of a more narrowed representation to that of the influences in likes with the majority of citizens; "Us"; or two, a New Nationwide Vote for "Us" all, to be "Our President".
In Short: This is NOT Over Yet And "We" "Are Not" "Hearing Yeah Or Neah About This:" At "ALL" From (Our) "Reliable News Sources" ...YET...?
ISN'T THIS IMPORTANT? DOES IT MATTER: WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG OR WHAT WE BELIEVE:
This post related the lack of reporting on the topic of "qualification by citizenship and candidates proven, proofs, and scrutiny of credabilty and public opinion; including whether the qualification is more an honorary custom or a definitive law?...:
When Do They Set Up 24 hours a day at a Court House To "REPORT?" ?; or should ""WE", "really"", ...care.
Or is it reallyJust Plain Politics?
2008 politics""United States Blogger Population Profiles-"Location-United States":
POSTS JANUARY 20th, 2008, AND OLDER
|
(Edited January 31, 2008; on this day of edit,this was the quickest I could catch of the 4 videos most related On The "Video Bar" above:) Tuesday, January 20, 2009 New Presideent - Old Posts And Comments Today The Oath was taken by our new President of The United States Of America. Today, the Supreme Court of The United States Of America has not yet updated the final docket, set for discussion on January 16th, 2009 , with any results of this discussion. Soon, all posts and comments leading up to this day will be entered as one post, alonng with the links and candidates that ran for this office in 2009. (that day is today- january 31, 2001) See More from today(scroll down) with Sources and Descriptions: Example: (Source is in bold)George W. Bush, "Today, a good man took Office!"(Description - plain text) Back in Texas! Yahoo! News Kennedy, Byrd collapse - inauguration luncheon Yahoo News- Barack Obama, left, joined by his wife Michelle, takes the oath of office http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts/photo//090120/480/70898f22ce0c4fa9a00f838fd875a9d9//s:/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_rdp Barack Obama, left, joined by his wife Michelle, takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts to become the 44th president of the United States at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong) The Supreme Court Of The United States Of America(Give them time to update any progress on decisions to Proceedings and Orders) No. 08A505 Title:Philip J. Berg, Applicantv.Barack Obama, et al. Docketed:Lower Ct:United States Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitCase Nos.:(08-4340)~~~Date~~~~~~~~~~ Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. Dec 9 2008Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.Dec 15 2008Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy. Dec 17 2008Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.Dec 18 2008Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 23 2008Application (08A505) referred to the Court.Dec 23 2008DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Phone~~~Attorneys for Petitioner:Philip J. Berg555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12(610) 825-3134Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Party name: Philip J. BergAttorneys for Respondents:Gregory G. GarreSolicitor General(202) 514-2217United States Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20530-0001Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.Lawrence J. JoyceLawrence J. Joyce LLC(520) 584-02361517 N. Wilmot Rd., #215Tucson, AZ 85712Party name: Bill Anderson
Friday, January 16, 2009TODAYS USAPRESIDENT.COM (Text's Style)January 20th 2008 Brought Change, BUT, This Website (USAPresident.Com) Has Been Found To Be To UnReliable For Related Searches For Anything "PRESIDENTIAL OF THE" Keywords Searched; i.e.: Related Searches
Day Of The Dead
Lake Of The Ozarks
End Of The World
The Real Thing
Best Web
Underdark
Parlux
Hordes Of The Underdark
Mark Of The Beast
USAPresident.com Sponsored Listings for LIST OF PRESIDENT FOR US are Linked As Is , As Follows:
President-Elect Plate - Official SiteThis Commemorative Plate Celebrates the Historic Victory. Limited Ed. As Seen on TV.www.victoryplate.com
Get U.S. Presidential CoverageGet informed results, news & more with the free ALOT politics toolbar.Politics.alot.com
2008 White House Gifts & SouvenirsBoth three and five monuments of Washingon mini-statues include the White House as well as photographs. Other monuments, FBI & CIA caps and shirts, and gifts for Americans of all ages.www.capitolshoppingmall.com
President Us at AmazonBuy books at Amazon.com and save. Qualified orders over $25 ship free.Amazon.com/books
Dear Mr. President - From PepsiShare Your Hope with the President. Sponsored by Pepsi.refresheverything.com
More Sites »
Which President is On the Nickel George W bush Campaign President Truman Jib Jab George Bush Cartoon
© 2009 usapresident.com. All Rights Reserved. (contact them linked here on their website) For Searching The Following Terms, use the search engine on this blog(Top Rightof Page) For resources and information on: President George Bush and List of American Presidents
Related Searches
President George Bush
List of American Presidents
U.S. President
List of President for Us
USA Vice President
1790 President
Qualification for Us Presidency
Speech
President Kennedy
Face of Presidents On Coins
United States Country Information
Senate
Congress
Presidents of the United States
Political FINAL JUDGEMENTiS THIS, FINALY THE LAST CASE?
Docket for 08A505
Philip J. Berg, Applicant. v. Barack Obama, et al. ... Application (08A505) referred to the Court. Dec 23 2008, DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009. ... Philip J. Berg, 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, (610) 825-3134 ...www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a505.htm - 4k
Momentum by the consitancy of the Supreme Court's decision history of cases so far on this issue are largely in favor of "Not Hearing"; whether this is the last case, I Do Not Know.
My wonder is really more about the Supreme Court Establishment's Integrity; i.e.: if one of them says I don't want to hear it, then none of them will say they will either; if any think "we should here this" then one of them should; all this concidering our best interests and not the political structures branched dominion leveraging.
The math makes me wonder if anyone could seek a fair hearing when your asking it to be heard against or "about" one of the three branches, "by" one of the other three branches, of what the third and last branch has seeded; can this formula include a fair chance for anyone who is not part "of a branch" but a remedial thread? Thats why I feel The Constitution is the X-factor here. Isn't it?
Obama himself is a Lawyer and the dynamics of the Presidential job seems to pose a fabric of obstacle by its nature on the President's weeknesses...just like everthing else about the U.S. would be by its competitor's.
Obama could handle his case fine, I figure.
The case, though it seems, is about the people, only in this case the Fifth Amendment appears but does what?
Its my MATH, followed by case dockets.
ITS ABOUT OUR POWERS
The FORMULA is "2 Of 3" Branches are divided or multiplied by "1 of the 2" of 3.
Does The 3rd have any participation?
Or Did They?
The issue is not only will the case be heard as its already been pushed up to this level,
but a Part is an "X" factor; The Constitution.
The "3" are our Branches of Government.
The campaign was for change
Monday, December 29, 2008Article 2 Section 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION is"ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION"
NOTE It Is, What it "IS" and "is" "AT STAKE"; is It Not?
Docket for 08-570 Oct 31, 2008 ... Dec 17 2008, DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009. ... Philip J. Berg, 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 No. 08-570 Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al. Docketed: October 31, 2008 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (08-4340) Rule 11 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed. Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter. Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed. Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson. Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter. Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy. Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009. Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy. Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia. Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court. Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009. ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioner: Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 Party name: Philip J. Berg Attorneys for Respondents: Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217 United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530-0001 Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al. Other: Lawrence J. Joyce Lawrence J. Joyce LLC (520) 584-0236 1517 N. Wilmot Rd., #215 Tucson, AZ 85712 barmemberlj@earthlink.net Party name: Bill Anderson Taking a look at this from this point of view: Philip J Berg lawsuit, US Supreme Court, Update December 2, 2008, Emergency Injunction, Writ of Certiorari deadline, Obama and DNC http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-us-supreme-court-update-december-2-2008-emergency-injunction-writ-of-certiorari-deadline-obama-and-dnc-have-not-responded/ Note: ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION Article II Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."WHO IS PAYING FOR WHATWHAT IS THIS THAT IS BEING PASSED ALONG IN SOME TANGENT OF "THE LEAST LIKELY TIMING FOR A DESCISION, PROCESS" For A Supreme Court Ruling that Could Change The Results Of The General Public's VOTE for The New President Elect?
This may seem out in "left field" (simply "way -out there, somewhere")
...
Whats the hold up?
And Who is paying for what?(if any one or anything)
5 OLC 180; June 17, 1981 Anti-Lobbying Restrictions Applicable to Community ServicesAdministration Grantees The anti-lobbying rider in the Community Services Administration(CSA) appropriation act is broader than the generally applicablerestrictions on lobbying by executive officers, and prohibits recipientsof CSA grant funds from engaging in any activity designed to influencelegislation pending before Congress, including direct contacts withCongress.
Congress is under no obligation to make funds available to any agencyfor every authorized activity in any given fiscal year, and there shouldbe no presumption that it has done so.
The anti-lobbying statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1913, and the general"publicity and propaganda" rider in the General GovernmentAppropriations Act, have been narrowly construed to prohibit the use offederal funds for "grassroots" lobbying, but not to prohibit a widerange of necessary communications between the Executive on the one hand,and Congress and the general public on the other. The considerationsthat underlie this narrow construction are irrelevant to a prohibitionagainst lobbying by private persons receiving federal grants andcontracts.
Statements made by individual legislators and committees after theenactment of legislation carry little weight in statutoryinterpretation, and are not a sufficient basis for altering a conclusionrequired by the plain meaning of the statutory language. On January 19, 1981, the Director of the Community ServicesAdministration (CSA) published in the Federal Register an interpretiveruling by the CSA General Counsel discussing the legal effect of an"anti-lobbying" rider that applies to CSA appropriations. See 46 Fed.Reg. 4919. The history and language of the rider are set out in themargin. /1/ In his ruling, the CSA General Counsel concluded that therider, in its application to CSA grantees, imposes anti-lobbyingrestrictions that are no more stringent than those imposed uponexecutive officers and employees by 18 U.S.C. Section 1913 /2/ and bythe traditional "publicity and propaganda" rider contained in theTreasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act./3/ In reliance upon that legal conclusion, the Director of CSA "waived"certain anti-lobbying restrictions contained in existing CSA grants.Those restrictions were apparently based upon an older, more stringentinterpretation of the rider. You have asked whether, in the opinion ofthis Office, the conclusions reached by the General Counsel were legallycorrect.
The CSA rider imposes two different kinds of restrictions on the useof appropriated funds. The first, set forth in the first sentence of therider, prohibits the use of funds "for publicity and propagandapurposes" or for the preparation or use of any "kit, pamphlet, booklet,publication, radio, television, or film presentation designed to supportor defeat legislation pending before Congress, except in presentation toCongress itself." This language is similar to the language of thetraditional "publicity and propaganda" rider contained in the GeneralAppropriations Act. Unlike the traditional rider, however, the CSA ridercatalogs the kinds of materials and "presentations" for whichappropriated funds may not be expended (kits, pamphlets, etc.), and itauthorizes at least two kinds of expenditures. It expressly permitsexpenditures for the maintenance of "normal and recognizedexecutive-legislative relationships," and it seems to contemplate thatfunds may be expended for the preparation of kits, pamphlets, and other"presentations" that are made directly to Congress itself.
The second restriction is set out in the second sentence of therider. Unlike the first, it applies only to persons who receiveappropriated funds under government grants or contracts. The secondsentence states flatly that "(n)o part of any appropriation contained inthis Act shall be used to pay the salary or expenses of any grant orcontract recipient or agent acting for such recipient to engage in anyactivity designed to influence legislation or appropriations pendingbefore Congress." Because this language forbids the payment of expensesfor "any activity" designed to influence legislation pending beforeCongress, it is far broader than the language of the traditional"publicity and propaganda" rider. Moreover, because it applies expresslyto grantees and contractors and makes no express provision for directcontacts with Congress, it is quite unlike the language of the"anti-lobbying" statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1913.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008President Election OverviewI don't know if any of the cases involving the Supreme Court and this years (2008) election will change or add to the following result I picked up on the Cornell Univesity ""Search "LII" ""
KEYWORDING "PRESIDENT" and clicking onto the results found under "Elections":
election law: an overview
Citizens make choices by voting in elections. Two types of elections exist: general elections and special elections. A general election occurs at a regularly scheduled interval as mandated by law. A special election would be held when something arises that does not arise on a regular basis or routine. For instance, if an elected-office suddenly becomes vacant or a legislature wants to put a referendum before the voters, then they can use a special election.
The electoral process ensures that no leader can take control for an extended amount of time without forcing the elected-official to answer to the will of the people. Nevertheless, government must play an active role in structuring elections and the electoral process. Consequently, individual states carry out the electoral process by following their own state laws. Sections 2 and 4 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution provide states the right to choose their own Representatives and Senators for the United States Congress. The 17th Amendment, however, mandates that the people directly elect the senators, and explicitly bars state legislatures from choosing the state's U.S. Senators.
Presidential Elections: The Electoral College
In Presidential elections, the people of the respective states vote for a Presidential candidate by choosing that candidate's slate of Electors. See Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. After the state's citizens have chosen a slate of Electors, the Electors then formally elect the President and Vice-President by casting their respective votes. When all states' slates of Electors arrive to cast their votes, the aggregate group makes up that which has come to be known as "the Electoral College."
The Office of the Federal Register coordinates the Electoral College. Comprised of 538 Electors, the number of total votes equals the aggregate number of Representatives and Senators that currently make up Congress. The number of Electors in a given state's slate equals its number of U.S. Representatives plus two. The number of Representatives that a state has is determined by considering the state's population in proportion to all other states. Accordingly, each state receives a proportional number of Representatives. The government takes the national census every ten years to determine each state's population. When this occurs, a state potentially can gain or lose Congressmen, which affect the number of Electors, known as electoral votes, that the state will have at the Electoral College.
Of the 50 states, forty-eight have a "winner-take-all" system. Washington D.C. follows the same system. A winner-take-all system assigns that state's entire slate of Electors to the candidate who won the popular vote, regardless of how close the popular vote in the state actually was. Maine and Nebraska use different systems in which they divide their states into districts and assign one electoral vote per district. The Presidential candidate who wins a particular district receives that district's electoral vote. Under this system, Maine and Nebraska could potentially split their electoral votes between candidates, although no Presidential election has ever witnessed either state splitting. No federal law exists that binds Electors to vote for a certain candidate. However, twenty-six states have developed laws for this purpose. After each state has submitted their Electors' votes, the votes are counted and a President and Vice-President are named. Usually, the Electoral College emerges with a winner identical to the U.S. popular vote. However, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the Electoral College winner lost the popular vote.
Congressional Elections
States may individually decide how to carry out their elections for Representatives, Senators and electors. Each state differs in structure, with most assigning administrative offices the task of running elections. States also differ on rules concerning when, where and how citizens may vote (see Congressional Districts). While the people of the respective states have always directly elected Representatives, most individual state legislatures chose the U.S. Senators that would represent that state until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. A product of the Progressive Era's call for more democracy, the 17th Amendment gave citizens more influence over the federal government.
Changes in Election Law
While Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are rare, seven of the twenty-seven Amendments that have passed deal with altering the process of electing the United States Federal Government. The 12th Amendment clarifies that each Elector of the Electoral College must cast two votes - one for President and one for Vice President. The 15th Amendment disallows abridging the right to vote on the basis of race, and the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. The 17th Amendment gives the people the right to directly elect their U.S. Senators. The 23rd Amendment granted electoral votes to Washington D.C. The 24th Amendment eliminated Poll Taxes, and the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18.
Recently-passed federal statutes have created a means for military personnel and overseas citizens to vote and have aided the elderly and disabled citizens' ability to vote. In 1993 Congress passed the "motor voter" law, which enables citizens to register to vote when they apply for driver's licenses.
Some states have recently begun adopting voter identification laws as well in an effort to combat voter fraud. These laws require voters to present identification when they arrive at the polling location to vote. Many felt that Indiana had the most stringent requirement because it required voters to present photo identification. Because some felt that the statute disproportionately burdened the elderly and the minorities, the statute was challenged and went before the U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion (07-21). The Supreme Court, however, upheld the law.
Campaign Reform
In 1971 Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to closely regulate federal elections. The law increased necessary disclosure of federal campaign contributions and created the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to administer federal elections. In 1979 the FEC permitted political parties to spend unlimited amounts of hard money on certain activities, and soft money went unregulated by the FEC. Hard money refers to funding donated directly to a campaign or political party, whereas soft money refers to funding contributed to organizations, often known as 527s, that advocate issues and indirectly advocate a candidate, without specifically advocating for the election or defeat of a particular candidate.
Following the law's passage, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the law's constitutionality in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), a landmark decision concerning the interplay between campaign regulations and First Amendment rights. In Buckley the Supreme Court ruled that the FEC could regulate and limit donations to campaigns but could not cap the amount of money that a political campaign could spend because doing so violates the First Amendment. Buckley also held that the FEC could not constitutionally regulate soft money.
Over the next three decades, concerns with the increasing costs of conducting a political campaign did not subside, and the popularity of soft money drove much of this concern. In accordance with this concern, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold (Bipartisan Campaign Reform) Act of 2002 (BCRA). The BCRA amended the FECA to add a provision, which disallowed federal candidates from using corporate and union funding to launch television ads on satellite or cable within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. A second amendment prohibited candidates and political parties at both the national and state levels from spending soft money on federal elections.
Immediately after the President signed the law, members of the U.S. Congress challenged the law's constitutionality before the U.S. Supreme Court. In McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Court upheld the Act's key provisions.
However, with two new justices on the bench in 2006, the Supreme Court reengaged the campaign finance debate, striking down a Vermont law because the low campaign expenditure ceiling it implemented was disproportionate to the goal it advanced. See Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006).
Then, in 2007 the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. 551 U.S. ___. As it applied to Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court struck down the portion of the BCRA that prohibited organizations from running issue ads within a certain number of days of the election because the provision restricted political speech and therefore violated the First Amendment rights of the organization.
The Supreme Court also expounded on the BCRA's provision known as "the Millionaire's Amendment" in the 2008 case of Davis v. FEC (07-320). The Millionaire's Amendment only affected candidates who had spent in excess of $350,000 in personal funds on their own campaign. The BCRA permitted the opponents of these candidates to receive triple the amount of personal contributions typically allowed and permitted the opponents to accept coordinated party contributions without limit, but the BCRA held self-financing candidates to the normal limit. Finding that the provision burdened free speech and associational rights, the Supreme Court struck down the provision as well. The combination of Davis and Wisconsin Right to Life leaves the BCRA in serious limbo.
For more information, see LII's Backgrounder on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Cases.
Categories:
wex
constitutional law
governmental organization power and procedure
overview
Tuesday, December 9, 2008Washington's CruisersLXXVIII Miss Arendt's only criticism of the American founding fathers is that ... ing a civil society, and the term "appeal to heaven," which does appear, ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195(196312)78%3A4%3C620%3AOR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 - Similar pages
JSTOR: America's Political Heritage: Revolution and Free ...
4~ The artless "Appeal to Heaven" posed a challenge for our Constitution mak- a9 ..... to endure and to be adapted to the various crises in human affairs. ... links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195(197622)91%3A2%3C193%3AAPHRAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P - Similar pages
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) OTHER OLDER TOPICS 2008 ELECTION AND RELATED Criteria-1 WHO NOW IS 2008 campaign's BEST FOR THE ROLE
OF THE JOB OF
THE PRESIDENT
OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2008 Presidential Candidates in All Parties All "Announced" candidates have formed or announced a Presidential exploratory or campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission or filed a statement of candidacy. "Potential" candidates have publicly expressed an interest in a Presidential campaign or their interest has been suggested by the media. |
see todays news topics
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment