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.)
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)
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
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.
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
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson