[Congressman Billybob]

Broadcast media MUST accept such an ad. They have no right to refuse it or censor it, as long as one of the 1,000 names promoting it IS a federal candidate. Therefore, with my name added, such an ad WILL be broadcast, if we organize this properly.

John / Billybob

[P-Marlowe]

The opinion of the court in explaining why this does not violate the first amendment is 300 pages long. The first amendment upon which this decision is alleged to have been based is one paragraph.

This is insane. Obviously if you need 300 pages to explain your position on something so simple as why this law does not "abridge freedom of speech", then your position is weak beyond words. This whole decision is contrived.

I think we need to get congress to pass a law that limits the jurisdiction of the Courts so that no federal court can issue an opinion on any case where the opinion exceeds 2000 words. Any opinion that exceeds that amount will have no force or effect.

There's no way they could have explained their illogical thinking in this case in 2000 words or less, so they would have had to issue a contrary opinion.

[proud American in Canada]

"Broadcast media MUST accept such an ad. They have no right to refuse it or censor it, as long as one of the 1,000 names promoting it IS a federal candidate. Therefore, with my name added, such an ad WILL be broadcast, if we organize this properly.'

I was wondering about that. Count me in as one of the thousand names, btw. :)

Anyway, I'm out of the jurisdiction to serve process, LOL!

[Sir_Ed]

"Broadcast media MUST accept such an ad. They have no right to refuse it or censor it, as long as one of the 1,000 names promoting it IS a federal candidate. Therefore, with my name added, such an ad WILL be broadcast, if we organize this properly."

Add my name to the list...

Ed