[Steve_Seattle]

"This law could not be used in this fashion at this time. But as the internet contiues to rise as a general news medium it may."

Placing restrictions in a site like this would be consistent with the spirit behind CFR, and no one should think that some members of congress wouldn't like to do that. Ted Kennedy, for example, wrote a preface for a book (damn, can't remember the title) advocating government regulation of sites like this, imposing a kind of "fairness" doctrine, etc., on websites. Their hostile attitude to Fox, the Internet, and talk-radio should be taken seriously; they will do what they can to regulate political speech they don't like, and with CFR the camel's nose is in the tent.

[mrsmith]

To repeat: The law is clearly not intended to apply to us.

That could be changed though, not by deliberately changing the law to specifically do so, but by changing communication laws about the internet as the internet becomes more of a mass medium (ie: making it officially a cable or satellite media). That event could even be hastened by groups using the internet to circumvent this new law.

I should correct something: it is not the fundraising that Jim may have to change then but the future anonymity of future FR donors (as I understand the law) to continue using donations to publish "electioneering communications" on FR during the restricted periods.

Just musing about the future, I hope no one starts going nuts over this!

Heck, perhaps we'd have the same consideration as the politically protected "official media".