[FirstPrinciple]

I disagree. When Congress passes a law that prohibits us from being critical on them right before the election, you know there is something wrong with that. There is a huge incentive for Congressmen to vote for this to keep them in office. Hence, this is an "Incumbent Protection Act." While sitting politicians get free face time from the media, it will get harder for challengers to go up against an incumbent. When do you want to attack your opponent? Just before the election. It is like MLB deciding that no runs scored from the 7-9th innings will get counted for the outcome of a game. The perverse incentives this bill creates to keep the incumbents in office is absolutely disgusting. Bush should have never signed it, but caved to pressure. Or, who knows, he is a big govt type. So, he must have liked it.

[woodyinscc]

While sitting politicians get free face time from the media, it will get harder for challengers to go up against an incumbent. When do you want to attack your opponent? Just before the election. It is like MLB deciding that no runs scored from the 7-9th innings will get counted for the outcome of a game. The perverse incentives this bill creates to keep the incumbents in office is absolutely disgusting.

I know this is besides the facts of your argument, and basically unprincipled, but what better time for this to be implemented? We have majorities in both Houses of Congress and in all likelihood will increase these in the next election. It will be better for us to wait until the dims wake up, and smell the backed up sewer. With their complicit press, they will holler to fix this post haste. I am sure our side with a few key concessions on their part, will be willing to oblige.!!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your baseball analogy is good but not for your case. If you are in the last innings you can use a pinch hitter ( a PAC) to do EXACTLY what you want to do. Nothing stops free speech at any time with such a pinch hitter.