Redstate

you can still list their blog on the free blogroll.

so I'm one Tina short of stardom?

Not really.  I guess Ike wrote "add" instead of "ad" too?

Seriously... you are asking the right to give contributions in kind to candidates... because you are on the internet.

It makes sense to oppose CFR on certain arguments, but what can I say, I still oppose the exceptionalism.

I reply to your statement: "Seriously... you are asking the right to give contributions in kind to candidates... because you are on the internet."

Tell me you don't believe editorials are an in kind donation? Ben DoubleCrossed

However, I agree with you that media plays in incredibly important and powerful role in our society.  As we discussed on the radio the other night, campaign finance reform proposals that limit the ability of candidates to get their message out merely empower the control of the editorial boards.  I agree with you that foreign ownership of newspapers could be very dangerous.  One wonders what the effect would be if China bought most of the major newspapers in this country."  From Congresswoman Ann Northup's letter to her constituent, Richard Lewis, dated September 4, 1997 http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann4.htm

"Mr. Richard Lewis, a constituent from Kentucky's Third District, has grave concerns about foreign ownership of media.

He raises the issue that while the media has brought campaign finance reform to the forefront of public awareness, such proposals limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to get out a message.  Meanwhile, two of the seven largest newspaper companies in the United States are owned by foreign investors.  The ability of these foreign owners to influence elections through editorial pages will be strengthened by increased limits on campaign finance."  Excerpt from Congresswoman Northup's September 4, 1997  letter to the Chairman William Thomas (Committee on House Oversight), on behalf of her constituent, Richard Lewis http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann6.htm

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." -Alex Carey, Australian social scientist who pioneered the investigation of corporate propaganda (see Taking the Risk Out Of Democracy, Univ of New South Wales, 1995)

===

The Press Exemption is Backwards

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  

Since corporations do not worship God, can we agree the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of people?

Then it follows that freedom of the press is a right of people and newspapers only enjoy the right because they employ people.

Therefore the New York Times has a right to print a newspaper because a citizen has the right to print a handbill.

The 1st Amendment is not a loophole in federal campaign law! Federal Campaign Law is a violation of 1st Amendment rights!

========

      Lovell v. City of Griffin SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 303 U.S. 444 Argued February 4, 1938 Decided March 28, 1938

      The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra.[note 2]

      Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such [384 U.S. 214, 219] matters relating to political processes. The Constitution specifically selected the press, which includes not only newspapers, books, and magazines, but also humble leaflets and circulars, see Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs.

------------------------------------------------

      UNITED STATES v. ASSOCIATED PRESS et al. Nos. 57, 58 and 59. Argued Dec. 5, 6, 1944. Decided June 18, 1945

      It would be strange indeed however if the grave concern for freedom of the press which prompted adoption of the First Amendment should be read as a command that the government was without power to protect that freedom. That Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.

But if you're within the media exemption, they're not. That's why the New York Times can say whatever it wants about John Kerry without creating illegal corporate expenditures on behalf of his campaign.

And bloggers deserve that same right.

The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws abridging freedom of speech and the press:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Kentucky State Constitution defines freedom of the press as the right of any person:

Kentucky Constitution, Section 8

Freedom of speech and of the press.

Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.

History: Not yet amended.

Is what I meant - as if we should be grateful for one tiny scrap of freedom for which we have to jump through an extra hoop.

It's citizen journalism as far as that rule is concerned.

I have to admit (well, I don't have to but will), half of me hopes you do accomplish your goals, maybe more than half.  I don't see the principled case for exceptional treatment, but I do see that you are fighting for some rights and freedoms, and maybe the non-exceptionalism should go in the other direction... that is, we'll get similar freedoms secured outside the internet.

The odd thing for me is I see some strong conservative arguments along those lines, but not so many progressive ones... so I understand redstate's position better than dkos'

So good luck, my material opinion on this is that I abstain.