[Jim Robinson]

My guess is, if this becomes law the broadcast media will not even accept the so-called illegal advertising. It would probably be next to impossible to break that portion of the law.

[GeronL]

there's got to be a station or a show somewhere that would do it. Anyways, I wonder what they'd think of a streaming audio webcast running ads for someone??

[diotima]

Two words: "RADIO FR"

We are the media NOW! Yahoo!!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

It is my understanding that issue-driven ads are not covered in the 30/60 day ban. They can be purchased by groups or organizations as long as they are paid for with hard money, and the sources are identified.

The only restriction that I can see thus far, is a ban on actually mentioning a candidates name on the ad.

It is also my understanding that this does not apply for candidates running for the office of VP, or President.

This is the part of the Bill that I believe the SCOTUS will shoot down.

[McGavin999]

But THEY are corporations Jim. Even discussing candidates and issues on so called legitimate news programs could be considered "in kind" contributions (IF the law is upheld). We as citizens could make this point and insist that they are breaking the law.

If SCOTUS does say the law is constitutional, then it would HAVE to apply to the media as well since the media is basically nothing more than corporations. Now, you find a flaw in that logic.

First of all, I don't believe for a minute that this law will be upheld. Even the people who sponsored it know it's going to be knocked down. What I can't figure out is why they even bothered to pass it knowing this.