[gondramB]

"Read the bill. S. 25 McCain-Feingold

The University of Pennsylvania's Annenburg Public Policy Center and the University of Wisconsin-Madison have documented the dramatic rise in issue advocacy. In response to these concerns, the McCain-Feingold bill banned ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate. "

I've just read the whole bloody thing and cannot find anything that limits speech, only things that limit spending. i checked both the links you suggested and they both focus on spending ,not speech.

Maybe the limits on speech are there but I don't see them.

[holdonnow]

If it is your position that money does not equal speech in this context, then you can write for the New York Times editorial page. If you cannot raise and spend money for the purspoe of broadcast advocacy ads 30 days before a primary election, and 60 days before a general election, that's limiting speech. Oh, and Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist thought so, too.

[JeffAtlanta]

I've just read the whole bloody thing and cannot find anything that limits speech, only things that limit spending. i checked both the links you suggested and they both focus on spending ,not speech.

Maybe you're regarding the process of buying political advertisements as only a spending issue.

[kabar]

I've just read the whole bloody thing and cannot find anything that limits speech, only things that limit spending. i checked both the links you suggested and they both focus on spending,not speech.

If you ban ads from advocacy groups within 60 days of an election and stipulate that they cannot mention the names of the candidates, you are limiting speech, not just money. The limitations are contained in the bill, which is full of bureaucratic jargon and legalese. Look under the Definition of Express advocacy and its definition and then link that to federal election law. I provided the other links to make it clearer.

The President stated, "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."

He also stated, "I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment."

I can't make it any clear than that. The bill not only limits donations (for some), but it also prevents groups from airing advocacy ads on TV/Radio 60 days prior to the election, which is a restriction on free speech. The President acknowledged the First Amendment issues when he signed the bill and specifically mentioned the restraints on free speech in the months prior to the election.

[itsahoot]

Maybe the limits on speech are there but I don't see them.

You can freely speak from your closet, but if you want anyone to hear you, then you have to buy TV time or News Print. Maybe you can do that without spending money?

[trisham]

I've just read the whole bloody thing and cannot find anything that limits speech, only things that limit spending. i checked both the links you suggested and they both focus on spending ,not speech.

***************

I am no authority, but it is my understanding that speech is limited by the limiting of spending.