[supercat]

In all the hysteria over the part of the bill none of us likes, ya'll overlooked the fact that "hard money" just doubled.

Yes, but what about the right of groups to put out ads that neither candidate particularly wants to see?

While it would be great if candidates had the courage to attack their opponents for pro-choice or anti-gun positions, few candidates can do so. On the other hand, third-party issue ads may attack such issues and compel candidates to take stands they would otherwise have been too timid to take.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Yes, but what about the right of groups to put out ads that neither candidate particularly wants to see?"

The bill does not stop them from doing that, as long as they use hard money (direct donations) and identify the source.

[colorado tanker]

I agree with you that issue ads have a very proper place in election campaigns. I won't defend that part of the bill. As I've made clear, I don't like the bill any better than the Prez. I just think Bush had no good alternatives here. Wild allegations that Bush violated his oath of office are just over the top. Reasonable people can, however, disagree over how Bush played a hand with no pairs and no face cards.

I would, however, rate the chances of reversal of the 60-day limits by the Supremes at 65-70%, which would improve the bill considerably.

Freegards.