Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NormsRevenge; Jim Robinson; Howlin; Buckhead

I'd bet this is a knee-jerk reaction to the CBS document scandal. FReepers outed them as fakes, and that was right before an election, was it not? That 60 day rule we heard about would've applied had this stinker passed the way they'd like.


5 posted on 03/24/2006 10:41:39 PM PST by cgk (I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: cgk

September the 8th.

And they rushed to get it on the air that night.


7 posted on 03/24/2006 10:43:52 PM PST by Howlin ("It doesn't have a policy. It doesn't need to have a policy. What's the point of a Democratic policy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: cgk

I'd say it's more in response to Dean's payoffs to KOS and other supposed "Independent" bloggers during 2004.....


15 posted on 03/24/2006 11:36:38 PM PST by tcrlaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: cgk
I'd bet this is a knee-jerk reaction to the CBS document scandal. FReepers outed them as fakes, and that was right before an election, was it not? That 60 day rule we heard about would've applied had this stinker passed the way they'd like.

Doubtful. The (unconstitutional) McCain-Feingold law was passed in 2002. The FEC came out with its original regulations on McCain Feingold (including those excluding Internet communications from the definition "public communication") in 2002 and 2003. The Shays suit made its way through the federal courts from 2003 to 2005.

The 60-day rule doesn't use the phrase "public communication". It only applies to "electioneering communications", which ONLY include "broadcast, cable or satellite communications" and nothing else, like Internet communications. I don't think the 60-day rule was ever intended to apply to the Internet, despite what recent reports have said.
18 posted on 03/25/2006 12:44:56 AM PST by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: cgk

No, it's an incumbent protection scam masquerading as an anti-corruption measure.


19 posted on 03/25/2006 1:24:14 PM PST by Buckhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson