Actually, I have two minds regarding the advertising ban if that is what you are upset about.
If the purpose is to have orderly elections, we need to have them be as rational and factual as possible. With the ban, we will still get the dirt dished to us, it will just happen months in advance of the election instead of the day before. for example, the DWI report regarding Bush was saved for maximum damage. Voters reacted emotionally with few facts and without the entire story. Now, if there is damaging information the card will have to be played early on. If its truly bad it will stick. If its just a dirty trick, it will pass to the memory bin by November.
On the other hand. I don't like the precedent it sets and I don't like the problem that occurs if damaging information is discovered after the deadline. The precedent could begin a process by which congress controls more and more of our public airways for elections.
Wasn't the Bush DWI thing released by a member of the Press? Wouldn't he be free to do that again, as the CFR law doesn't silence him.
we will still get the dirt dished to us, it will just happen months in advance
Maybe you'll know, but you probably know in advance anyway. Most people who vote don't even pay attention till a couple days before the election. They won't know what the media doesn't want them to know. And they'll get their news from MTV, not FOX. They're not called "useful idiots" for no reason.
Such reports will be issued as press releases, or just by some reporter who talks to someone, they will be deemed "news" and thus not subject to the restrictions. However if your group wanted to reply to the accusations, either because the candidate was one who consistently supported your group's position, or because the "allegations" dealt with something of interest to your group, your group could not make that statement, or at least could not get it out, except at the suffrage of the major "news" networks.