[Spiff]

And you don't believe the CFR involves the "manner" of holding elections?

Absolutely not! It is stretching this way to far to even conceive that it does. The portion of the Constitution involving the "manner" of holding elections is talking about the time of the year, balloting, who is eligible, etc. It certainly doesn't give Congress free reign to make any old law if they can pretend it is about the "manner" of holding elections. It certainly doesn't allow them to limit the speech about the candidates being elected, or their voting records, or their stated views. Only a moron would believe such - a moron that also believes that the general welfare clause was a generic grant of power, etc.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Manner does NOT include times and places which you would know if you were to read Article I, Section 4. They are listed separately.

There is plenty of authority within the Constitution for the fedgov to do most of what it wishes, dependence upon the "general welfare" clause need not be resorted to. Since you apparently need an explanation of its powers read Hamilton's essay on the constitutionality of the National Bank. That makes it clear as a bell but if you need further assistance I'll be glad to help.

This law specifies only that "soft money" cannot fund ads within the 60 day period. Those SAME, EXACT ads can easily be run using the "hard money" funds. Of course, if you are too stupid to plan a campaign knowing this you are too stupid to get elected anyway. Nor is this the first SC ruling to uphold limits on campaign spending/fund raising.

It is not so much the RATmedia which pushed this law but overwhelming support from the mass of the American people.
Only after its passage did the RATS realize how much of a problem they had caused for themselves.