"... the neatest thing since sliced bread ..."

What I said, after explaining that the bill is not an attack on your personal 1st Amendment Rights, was:
Article:
Commission lawyers advised that the FEC might not have the authority to provide such exemptions. But sponsors of the new law, including Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., challenged that advice in a letter to the commission Wednesday. They said the commission should consider exempting legitimate issue ads.

Me:
If it goes, this addendum seems perfectly reasonable. New thoughts of issues should be considered right up to the vote.

What I did not do was jump up and down, and start buying drinks all ‘round.

Now, if it does go all the way (and I think it just might, since most people find the slam -- I mean, political -- commercials during a political panic-month to be idiotic anyway -- and I personally feel they need better special effects anyway), would you rather this piece not be added? No need to shout on and on about the but-but-but-but issues. My mind was made up regarding politics by the time I was five-years-old, and this is just a question.

The purpose of political action groups--and they are not all right-wing--is to allow people who do not have the money to buy ads and such to combine their resources to make a political point. Just because you might not like the point doesn't mean it has to be criminalized. If you shut off the groups, you leave only wealthy individuals.



Or are we saying that Bill Gates, as an individual, is allowed to make his views known to the world, but the NRA and Greenpeace aren't?





Once again, if a month or two of political silence condemns a special interest group to oblivion, then it wasn't a very potent group to begin with. And I'm very sorry that Gates went and got himself so successful, but he DOES remain an individual, and YES, he should, as a living, breathing American citizen, hold more rights than any special interest group -- including Microsoft -- no matter whether you like him or not, no matter whether you agree with him or not, no matter whether you use his company’s product or not.

This law had one single purpose, and that was the selective silencing of political opposition, and it was voted along solid partisan lines to crush Republican resources.

How does this bill not silence special interest groups that would support a Democrat issue/candidate?

Dan