[My2Cents]

See my post #69. Frankly, I think the argument that the CFR "sacrifices" the Constitution is hooey. Please make your case.

[aristeides]

I believe even the majority of the Supreme Court today admitted they were limiting freedom of speech. They thought that was justified by the higher good of avoiding corruption and even the appearance of corruption. Just where does that higher good appear in the Constitution? Does this not mean that any constitutional provision can be trumped by some higher good that the courts dream up?

[Lazamataz]

Frankly, I think the argument that the CFR "sacrifices" the Constitution is hooey. Please make your case.

1. In todays media environment, the only way to get a message out is to buy advertising.

2. Advertising requires money.

3. This bill specifically denies organized efforts using donated money to get a political message out 60 days prior to an ellection.

4. Ergo, the free speech of those people who have organized to get a message out -- about political issues -- is specifically denied.

The fact you cannot see this is a complete abrogation of the 1st Amendment is staggering.

[rintense]

I stated my case on the other thread. But, in summary, any law which stifles and suppresses political speech, regardless of when it is said, is unconstitutional. Period. I don't care what the SCOTUS have ruled. This law is wrong. And this ruling is wrong. Whoever gains politically is inconsequential. This law put politics over principle. And we, as individuals- or individuals part of a larger, common group, have lost.

[holdmuhbeer]

I agree, nobody has been able to tell me how this violates the constitution. They just want to bitch and rant about it but no intelligent discussion.