Redstate

(Note: I expect that Congress will move a HECK of a lot more legislative business inside that 60-day window from now on)

Of all the black marks against Bush, his signature on this legislation wins hands down. Fortunately, it bears the names of those directly responsible and both want to be the president who follows him.

Only it is just for the New York Times corporation, Time Warner corporation, etc...

absolutely disgusting.

Does this legistlation cover things like this blog? Is this the first step in shutting down the blogsphere?

RidgewoodRepublicanClub

This appalling law came under George W. Bush and the Republicans. And you feared what Democrats might do.

The Republicans are in trouble in the fall. Surprised? This is just one big example why.

While Mike has the general thrust right, that there is a 60 day limit on electioneering communications (that is teh McCain-Feingold term for these types of ads), they can still be run if they are paid for by a PAC.

The problem with this of course is that most organizations don't have a PAC with enough funds to run TV ads and those that do have such a PAC generally won't spend on this types of ads.

But the limitation on how to pay for the ads is in effect a ban on the advertising--itself a violation of First Amendment rights. Not since the Alien and Sedition Acts has then been a practically outright ban on criticizing the government when the government is doing the people's business.

Matt Johnston

ii will NEVER vote for mccain. Don't care if its primary or the general.

Save the planet, Kill yourself

This will be found Unconstitutional and relegated to the dust bin of history.

I am patiently awaiting the first challenge, which should be measured in days.

By the way, isn't it ironic the man who has talked about us having too many First Amendment rights is namely attached to this legislation?

McCain for President indeed. I think he should save his money for something more achievable, like retirement.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

>>You see, today - September 7th - a ban on independent issue advertising mentioning incumbent Members of Congress goes into effect.

Does it really specify incumbents but not candidates? If so then the implications are breathtaking, and I think could not possibly survive a legal challenge.

Let me set out a test case which would surely have to destroy this ruling:

An independent group needs to run an advert criticising two candidates - one incumbent and one not - in exactly the same words. If one of those is illegal and the other not, then I am sure the law itself would be successfully challenged.

Perhaps a good case in point would be to run an advert criticising Sheldon Whitehouse and Lincoln Chafee using exactly the same wording.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net