[My2Cents]

With all due respect, I don't understand the outrage. In making a "freedom of speech" argument against the campaign finance reform law, it would seem that ANY campaign finance law enacted by Congress or the states when such became the vogue in the mid-1970s would be a violation of the First Amendment. Regulation of campaign contributions, whether by individuals, corporations, or PACs, and whether to individual campaigns or to political organizations, are all regulated. So, why the outrage?

[Torie]

Putting aside the constitutional issues, do you think this campaign finance bill represents wise public policy?

[Edit35]

"With all due respect, I don't understand the outrage. In making a "freedom of speech" argument against the campaign finance reform law, it would seem that ANY campaign finance law enacted by Congress or the states when such became the vogue in the mid-1970s would be a violation of the First Amendment. Regulation of campaign contributions, whether by individuals, corporations, or PACs, and whether to individual campaigns or to political organizations, are all regulated. So, why the outrage?

You are so correct!!!

I get the feeling that many people on this thread just get off on being outraged.

Watch and see. This law aint gonna make one bit of difference.

Organizations will find a way around it, just as they have over, and over, and over with all previous campaign finance laws.

Besides, if someone runs a "questionable" ad on radio or TV, by time they are taken to court, or whatever, the election will be over.

That's what happens now. How many times does so-and-so violate election laws, just to get slapped with a mini-fine AFTER the election is over.

Really, I don't think this will be a big deal at all.

[Tauzero]

"it would seem that ANY campaign finance law enacted by Congress or the states when such became the vogue in the mid-1970s would be a violation of the First Amendment"

Well, duh.