Actually, CFR was supposed to stop groups from running ads within certain periods of time of elections. The rationale was that politicians would be beholden to groups that spoke out on behalf of them, or against their opponents. They essentially said "you cannot organize and run ads for us, or against our opponents, because it will corrupt us, therefore, we need to limit your right to free speech, because we are so corruptable."
There is a reason why Bush (and Kerry) is suing to shut these groups up. They are trying to silence them, through legal action.
Also, I'm certain you would have been as enthusiastic a proponent of CFR if it had of been passed and signed by Democrats instead of Republicans.
We've always had speech limitations around our electoral processes.
I didn't like CFR, but I didn't go apeshit when Bush signed it. It was a politically popular fait accompli that the ghoulish McCain exploited for personal "shake the Ghost of Keating" redemption after the media contrived mania of the Enron "scandal".
Bush didn't even hold a signing ceremony to given the McCain/Shayes RINO egomaniacs a single showcase. Get real Guillermo, Bush wasn't pushing this thing, he accepted a 60% legislative mandate that would have created counter-productive political ramifications to his congressional allies if he'd have vetoed the measure.
That's the way stuff gets done in D.C., and GREAT GOOGOOLY MOOOGOOLY ... not all the stuff is savory.
The big kids in our effective, productive Conservative political club GET IT. We're on a "beat Kerry" mission right now, and you "bet Bush" hominids need to start getting smacked around this forum. There's too much at stake for the losers and operatives to own the negative noise and poison the proactive Conservative FR energy that can be a force multiplying agent of influence toward achieving our collective interests.