HOLY 5-4, BATMAN!

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the main portions of McCain/Feingold will stay in place for the 2004 election. (link via roger ailes, who's pithy analysis of the opinion is "Ken Starr bites a big one")

The Supreme Court today upheld the most important provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform act of 2002, an attempt to control the unregulated, uncontained and often underground system of fund-raising and spending that now dominates federal election campaigns.

The decision, allowing a ban on "soft money" and restrictions on "issue ads" that benefit individual candidates, means the current election campaign can proceed without interruption under the new law, according to attorneys on both sides of the case.

Kudos to Sandra Day O'Connor, who joined Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg in keeping the law in place. I imagine that this is part of her continuing "operation infinite rehabilitation of reputation" tour. That's great, Sandra D, just make sure you save some of it for the upcoming cases on gay marriage, the pledge, and the gitmo detainees.

But then, something caught my attention on the second page of the Post article. The attorney for McCain-Feingold opponent Mitch McConnell (R-not a handsome man), made a statement:

There were eleven different challenges to the law, all of which were consolidated in today's ruling, called McConnell, United States Senator, et al., v. Federal Election Commission et al. The court worked with uncommon speed to get the decision published before the actual beginning of the formal election year, 2004. On only one minor matter did the challengers prevail. The court said congress went too far in banning contributions by minors. This provision was designed to prevent adults from funneling money through children.

"I think the result is disappointing but not altogether unexpected," said Jan Baran, one of the attorneys representing the main challenger of the law, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "And the 5-4 decision reflects how evenly divided opinion is on these issues." (emphasis TFM's)

Oh, reeeeeaaallly? Did that thought occur to the senator from Kentucky when he enthusiastically voted for three large, top-heavy tax cuts?

Oh well, not that I expect consistency from these guys.