[aristeides]

Well, Leon said he thought the defendants had established the constitutionality of: (1) restrictions on the use of soft money donations by national, state, and local parties to fund certain types of campaign communications (particularly candidate-advocacy "issue" advertisements) and (2) restrictions on the airing of corporate and union electioneering communications which promote, oppose, attack, or support specific candidates for office. I suspect we're going to find out these provisions were also upheld by the other judge in the majority.

[Wphile]

Okay, I'm confused. Are you saying that the reporting on this is wrong then?

[Wphile]

...and leave standing its most pernicious provisions, apparently on the ground that candidate focused political speech inevitably “corrupts” the individuals to whom it refers.

Well, she's right here. I always thought the whole debate was so stupid because if the politicians were really honest about it, the reason for this bill was because politicians are corrupt. I always said, ok, then, who's corrupt? Who's the culprit here? Out with it McCain! Sheesh...just because someone receives money or has an ad aired on their behalf doesn't make them corrupt but according to McCain and this bill, it does.