I agree with you. I merely point out that those arguing that CFR is unconstitutional (which I also agree with), would not be able to point out specific language in the consitution equating campaign donations with free speech. That argument comes from the 1976 Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo. There, what was an activist court stated that "virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money." Therefore, the court concluded, the provisions of the 1974 law that tried to limit political expenditures were unconstitutional "since those provisions place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the 1st Amendment cannot tolerate." The court also declared that issue advocacy itself is free speech, so individuals and organizations, including political parties, are free to give and spend as much as they want advancing any issue whatsoever so long as they do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.
In 1988’s Meyer v. Grant, the Supreme Court, in striking down a Colorado law, declared, "The 1st Amendment protects the appellee’s right not only to advocate their cause but also to select what they believe to be the most effective means for doing so." This should include television, especially in the closing days before an election, as the "most effective means" to educating voters.
In the 1996 case of Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, the liberal Justice Stephen Breyer stated: "We do not see how a Constitution that grants to individuals, candidates, and ordinary political committees the right to make unlimited independent expenditures could deny the same right to political parties."
My point being that I would like to see an end, once and for all, to the annual McCain CFR debate. Most of the argument of its unconstitutionality comes from the Supreme Court. Yet, so many here have no faith in the Supreme Court while mouthing its previous rulings. You and I, and even President Bush, may state that this law is unconstitutional and argue that to others until we are blue in the face, but since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrer of the constitutionality of an act of Congress. I have faith in the court based on the precedents that the CFR will be given its ultimate death blow.