[colorado tanker]

Oh, puleezzze. The First Amendment has not been destroyed. I agree that banning advocacy group ads in the 60 days before election should be held to violate the First Amendment. But I've never tried to buy one of those ads and most likely never will. The fact is the First Amendment has been violated for 30 years by the $1,000 donation limit, which this bill doubles. That's where my money goes - to candidates. MY First Amendment speech has been increased, not restricted. People should quit hyperventilating over this.

[OWK]

Oh, puleezzze. The First Amendment has not been destroyed. I agree that banning advocacy group ads in the 60 days before election should be held to violate the First Amendment. But I've never tried to buy one of those ads and most likely never will. The fact is the First Amendment has been violated for 30 years by the $1,000 donation limit, which this bill doubles. That's where my money goes - to candidates. MY First Amendment speech has been increased, not restricted. People should quit hyperventilating over this.

As long as it's not your ox being gored...

[RAT Patrol]

. But I've never tried to buy one of those ads and most likely never will.

But Barbra Streisand can still go on Rosie O'Donnell's show and give a nice long speech about why everyone should vote for Al Gore THE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION and that is still legal. How many fat cat sources did that money come from?

When they restrict the Corporate giants who own media outlets to the same financial limitations then we can talk about the issue ads being "no big deal". I give to interest groups who advertise and I'd like to keep that right thank you very much!!!!!!!!!

[EBUCK]

Oh, puleezzze. The First Amendment has not been destroyed.

Neither has the 2nd but people still feel the need to defend it in it's entirety.

I agree that banning advocacy group ads in the 60 days before election should be held to violate the First Amendment. But I've never tried to buy one of those ads and most likely never will.

I have spent money on some of the issue ads. With the NRA specifically. And just because you have never spent money on these ads means that I shouldn't be able to?

The fact is the First Amendment has been violated for 30 years by the $1,000 donation limit, which this bill doubles. That's where my money goes - to candidates. MY First Amendment speech has been increased, not restricted. People should quit hyperventilating over this.

Just because the 1st has been violated for years is no reason to kick it around some more. See 2nd ammendment fight again for hypocrisy here.

Here is the bottom line. If I don't support a candidate with money I am no longer allowed to speak out in the 60/30 time frame. That is it. End of story. If I don't want to support the RINO or RAT in my district I have no voice in the election process. That is not right. And Bush knows it. He knows it and signed anyway.

I don't understand how you can defend your position honestly when you actually agree that the bill is unConstitutional (in bold above)

EBUCK