i wonder when the ACLU or other special interest group will break this law

Current Events » in reply to Re: The issue . . .

i wonder when the ACLU or other special interest group will break this law

Scott — 9/27/2002 8:50:25 AM (archived)

I bet it won't take long.

Afterall, if the national organization for Women runs a single ad 29 days before the election that says "get out and vote or you might lose the right to an abortion in Missouri..." then technically that would be a violation of the law if there was a race in Missouri where one candidate was clearly pro-choice and the other was clearly pro-life...

Or would the new commission say that such a get-out-the-vote ad was to vaguely worded to support one candidate over another?

Scott

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)