Hello, Mary Anne (good to see you, btw).

[Radio on the bus or in the elevator? TV in the cafe or at the sports bar?

You can't just turn it off. It isn't yours.]

True, Mary Anne, but you are still free to disagree, use ear plugs... ear buds :) that bring different audio experiences through your portable radio/cd player. However, the latter would be difficult at airports.

[I still haven't found anything limiting print -- a non-passive source because reading requires active participation by the recipient of the information -- but I may not have looked in the right place.]

That would infringe on "freedom of the press" and "speech" in general again. Would computer 'virtual print' fall under that? It very well could. I hope you, of all people, :) doesn't find anything limiting print... or the written word in general.

Regarding the article you cited:

(excerpted)

The political ad restrictions are among the most contentious features of the new law. The law's sponsors say many groups have used phony "issue ads" to evade a ban on the use of union or corporate money to influence federal elections and avoid revealing where they get their funding. Issue ads may mention federal candidates but cannot directly call for their election or defeat.

Several groups, including the AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ( news - web sites), contend the ad restrictions violate constitutional free-speech rights and are suing to try to overturn the law.

In addition to the ad restrictions, the new law also prohibits national party committees from raising unlimited donations from corporations, labor unions and others, and directs the FEC to create new rules spelling out the extent to which political parties, candidates and groups can coordinate their campaign activities with each other.

Silly idea... maybe, but to all the above I say that each party/candidate/group should be given a specific amount of time and meet a specific ad quota up to election time.

Best to all here (TGIF),

Marcia