Re: First Amendment apparently not shredded entirely, but not for lack of trying

Current Events » in reply to First Amendment apparently not shredded entirely, but not for lack of trying

Re: First Amendment apparently not shredded entirely, but not for lack of trying

Marcia — 9/27/2002 8:22:36 AM (archived)

The law, which takes effect Nov. 6, prohibits special interest groups from airing ads identifying federal candidates within one month of a primary or two months of a general election.

---

They should abolish them altogether. I haven't found any of those ads to be helpful in making a decision. There's not enough time for candidates to make reasonable, coherent statements in 30 seconds (even Ross Perot tried to make his 'presentation' that lasted, what was it 20 minutes?! It didn't work for him either). They've all discovered that insulting and bashing the other guy take less time. Maybe that's why they're letting Leno and Letterman keep at it, it's their job.

The whole thread (37 posts)

First Amendment apparently not shredded entirely, but not for lack of trying - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 6:32:51 PM
- Re: Well . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 7:08:27 PM
  - Well said - Robert - 9/27/2002 7:42:26 PM
    - so a Union doesn't have the right to exist? - Scott - 9/27/2002 7:50:26 PM
      - Re: The issue . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 8:42:56 AM
        
        i wonder when the ACLU or other special interest group will break this law - Scott - 9/27/2002 8:50:25 AM
        
        Re: The emphasis is on "special interest groups". - Marcia - 9/27/2002 9:20:17 AM
      - what? - Robert - 9/27/2002 8:02:37 AM
        
        Re: what? - Scott - 9/27/2002 8:39:40 AM
  - I can't believe you said that... - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 7:30:22 PM
    - Re: I can't believe you said that... - Robert - 9/27/2002 7:53:08 PM
    - They can assemble all they want - Mary Anne - 9/27/2002 7:50:41 PM
      - Re: They can assemble all they want - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 9:06:26 AM
        
        Re: Excuse me, Tom . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 10:41:25 AM
        
        Re: Excuse me, Tom . . . - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 10:53:32 AM
        
        Re: I can sorta see the problem . . . - D. spires - 9/27/2002 11:11:47 AM
        
        Re: I see it now (after debating the issue at home :) - Marcia - 9/27/2002 11:38:26 AM
        
        Involuntary exposure - Mary Anne - 9/27/2002 12:03:54 PM
        
        Re: Involuntary exposure - Marcia - 9/27/2002 12:39:29 PM
        
        Re: Networks and radio stations, ads in general. - Marcia - 9/27/2002 1:05:30 PM
        
        Re: Should . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 1:11:26 PM
        
        Re: But , , , - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 11:58:41 AM
        
        I'm with you on this one... - Scott - 9/27/2002 10:36:32 AM
        
        The special interest group - Mary Anne - 9/27/2002 11:39:17 AM
        
        Re: I see . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 11:53:14 AM
        
        Re: Seems to me . . . - D. spires - 9/27/2002 10:58:11 AM
    - Re: What I mean (and not backpedaling at all) . . . - D. Spires - 9/27/2002 8:53:04 AM
- "What if the vote had gone the other way?" - alcaray - 9/27/2002 7:05:55 PM
  - The Supreme Court will kill this law anyway. - Scott - 9/27/2002 7:43:49 PM
    - Re: The Supreme Court will kill this law anyway. - Tony - 9/27/2002 8:15:59 AM
      - Re: The Supreme Court will kill this law anyway. - Scott - 9/27/2002 8:43:39 AM
        
        The Republicans on the FEC blocked the exceptions - Mary Anne - 9/27/2002 2:00:41 PM
- Fundamental to conservatism. - Bowser - 9/27/2002 2:03:09 PM
  - Re: Fundamental to conservatism. - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 4:04:44 PM
    - Puh-leese!! - Bowser - 9/27/2002 5:26:06 PM
- Which animals are more equal than others... - Tom Brosz - 9/27/2002 1:04:53 PM
- Re: First Amendment apparently not shredded entirely, but not for lack of trying - Marcia - 9/27/2002 8:22:36 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (37 posts)