[M.K. Borders]

Actually what triggers HR2356 is not broadcast ads, or print, put any PAID advertizing. You can take out full page ads in the NYT the day before elections, just so long as you don't pay for them.

If we had to pay for each post we made, then FR would be a prohibited communication.

[The Old Hoosier]

For 60 days prior to an election, at least, the following holds true. The NRA can no longer print messages regarding candidate stances in it's jounals. It can no longer attach a sticker to the election issue, notifying it's members as to which candidate it endorses. The NRLC can no longer send out notices that inform it's members regarding what bozos protect infanticide.

Let me repeat this again for the last f$#%ing time: NO PRINT ADVERTISING OF ANY KIND IS FORBIDDEN BY SHAYS-MEEHAN. It is not forbidden for non-profits, it is not forbidden for for-profits, not for anyone or anything, beyond what the current law already states. The only kind of advertising forbidden by this bill is radio and television advertising by an independent, non-PAC group which engages in "express advocacy" as defined in S-M.

Unless you take the time to understand this, you will continue to mischaracterize the bill. The biggest problem with S-M is that it has an unconstitutionally broad definition of "express advocacy," which, ridiculously, includes any mention of any candidate's name in any broadcast ad 60 days before an election. It also has an unconstitutionally broad definition of "coordination" between groups and candidates.

Please take the time and understand what this bill does and what it does not do. It does not affect print or internet advertising. The proponents of S-M justify their intervention in television speech by arguing that all stations need a federal license, so they need to follow federal guidelines. This argument, as wrong as it is for television, cannot even hope to apply to the Internet, since the Internet is wholly unregulated.