McCain-Feingold and Republicans?

It was drafted because the Wisconsin Right to Life organization was targeting McCain's buddy over threatened filibusters on conservative judges and used its corporate treasury to run the ads rather than its PAC funds. Now on the surface this is an unconstitutional bill but passes muster for two reasons.

One the court defers to congress because of the Tillman Act and its belief that congress knows best who is trying to buy them. The second reason is the court believes that an organization with a PAC should use those funds instead. Both arguments are the height of absurdness on pure logic, never mind the constitutional issue, which really wasn't raised.

Looking at this absurd issue from the logic point of view we find first that the court believes that congress knows who is trying to buy them and if they don't like who is trying to buy them, they have the right to ban the practice. The main problem here is that the ads by the WRTL group specifically targeted Feingold and Johnny came rushing to his buddies defense.

Johnny was so concerned about the principle of this that he left a hole large enough for Moveon.Org to drive a fully loaded Hummer through, which it did with the funding of communist George Soro's money. Did Johnny try to rectify his omission? That would be a great big NO.

See Johnny felt no such compulsion when Feingold's buddies, the teacher's union attacked his republican opponents, only when the WRTL group attacked Feingold. The ACLU, or Anemic Communist Lunatics Union, applauded McCain. Whenever the ACLU applauds anyone or anything, you can be sure it is anti-American

Now, lets look at the pure nonsense of this bill on the subject of buying elections. A financial services organization, such as a bank can set up a PAC. It can than send internal emails around suggesting that its employees should donate. The underlying assumption in corporate life, is that giving to the PAC shows you are a team player, do not give an you can become a piranha. Very simple fact of corporate life.

The PAC than does what? Does it spend its funds to support legislation or candidates who are hostile to the bank or banking system, no it does not. It uses those funds to buy congressmen and senators in hopes of influencing or furthering its agenda. The Teacher's Union does the same thing, as does the Trail Lawyer's association and so forth, these are what are termed special interest groups. Yes teachers and labor unions are special interest groups.

So in other words, you can spend millions of dollars on a cause, but not for or against a candidate by name even if there is only one candidate favoring or opposing the cause. So to clarify, it is perfectly legal for a bank PAC to lavish funds on John McCain while he is running for president as long as they don't mention his name or his opponents name, yet that very same bank could not lavish funds on John McCain directly. The distinction being for all intent and purpose, nonexistent.

I wonder if it would be legal under the current stupid rules to run an ad that said, “Someone you and I know but can not name, supports illegal immigration (since changed since running for president), trial lawyer rights, and abridges freedom of speech.”

Well you should question anything that suppresses freedom of speech. And what is the bill except making it more difficult for groups to let their opinions be heard, except suppression of freedom of speech?

Beyond that McCain-Feingold simply made it necessary for each party (and they both do it) to run negative ads under the guise of a special interest group. For example, MediaMatters is backed by Hillary. George Soros has funded numerous front groups to attack Republicans.

McCain-Feingold has simply made it more difficult for the average person to know the agenda of ads, whereas before it was pretty transparent.

the point is to cut back marketing campaign contributions so as that distinctive interests with deep wallet can not finance their candidate marketing campaign and finally end up "possessing" that candidate. case in point, if enormous oil payed for the marketing campaign, that president ought to no longer push potential independence. It ranges the enjoying container. for this reason we are no longer seeing lots of the form of hateful slanderous television classified ads that have been so famous interior the final 2 presidential campaigns (from all aspects). i'm going to be continuously grateful. Now i'm able to truly nevertheless watch television throughout an election. To me, it does not shrink loose speech in any respect. It merely makes it honest for all. somewhat guy can compete with a mega millionaire.

It's one of the main reasons I will not vote for McCain. I see it as a direct assault on the 1st Amendment. The Constitution guarantees free political speech in this country all the times. Not just at certain times.

It stifles free speech and infringes on other freedoms as well. Two idiots sponsored it. That's it.