1 posted on
05/05/2003 5:26:19 PM PDT by
rhema
To: rhema
I don't see the words "First Amendment" or "free speech" mentioned anywhere in the article. Forget about the murky arguments about who can do what with whose money, and emphasize instead what the law does to the right of individuals to speak in favor or in opposition to candidates anytime during a political campaign. Why not focus on that chilling suppression of our fundamental right, Professor??
2 posted on
05/05/2003 5:39:09 PM PDT by
CedarDave
(The number of Saddam sightings is rapidly approaching those of Elvis!)
To: rhema
BTTT!
3 posted on
05/05/2003 5:44:27 PM PDT by
RAT Patrol
(Congress can give one American a dollar only by first taking it away from another American. -W.W.)
To: rhema
bttt
5 posted on
05/05/2003 6:10:27 PM PDT by
ellery
To: rhema
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWAnother phrase our ruling elite doesn't understand.
6 posted on
05/05/2003 6:33:53 PM PDT by
metalurgist
(Never underestimate the power of a large group of stupid people....... U S Congress's real motto)
To: rhema
05/10/2002 Proponents have called the legislation a first step at eliminating the influence and access of big-money donors.05/05/2003 Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court will sustain the promising start made Friday by a federal appeals court in reforming the McCain-Feingold law's so-called reforms.
Less than a year & already the courts think reform stinks.
I thought it stank from the beginning.
8 posted on
05/05/2003 8:16:34 PM PDT by
jrushing
To: rhema
But such Utopian schemes often have unintended consequencesNot sure about that "unintended" part...
10 posted on
05/05/2003 10:07:27 PM PDT by
WhaChuLookinAt
(As a matter of fact, I DO put my pants on both legs at a time.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson