It is also clear that the politicians in Congress are quite *fond* of the idea of limiting outside group spending, since it generally attacks *incumbents*. So this is an incumbent protection bill.
It seems like so many of the posters here are against CFR because of the concept that soft money contributions are a form of free speech under the constitution.CFR wasn't even on the back burner until Clinton suddenly announced that we needed it. Why did he say that? To change the subject from the fact that he had been caught redhanded violating existing campaign laws! So passing and signing CFR is, in the first instance, (barf alert!) vindication of x42.Am I missing some other reasons most people here are against this? I'm sort of up in the air at the moment, and trying to determine what I think.
The irony of the matter is that in fact politics should be banned from the "public airwaves." Of course you shouldn't do it by halves, as in CFR--journalism is politics and should be banned from the public airwaves.
And that is because the fundamental aspect of freedom of speech and press is equality before the law. Broadcasting as we know it could not exist if everyone had an equal right to broadcast--so the only way to make us all politically equal (within the limits of our respective pocketbooks) is to ban political broadcasting by anybody.