Friday, January 30, 2004
Who? Me?!?
Reading about the Supreme Court’s recent McConnell v. FEC decision upholding McCain-Feingold, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, including its ban on soft money campaign contributions and issue ads on television and radio, I can across this concept by Mark Tapscott. The law bans "issue ads" [wherein a group with an issue often blasts or praises a particular politician's stance on their issue] 30 days before a primary and 60 days before as general election because the ads create a "corrupting appearance." Now that's an interesting phrase: a corrupting "appearance" vs "influence" or "actuality," even. The argument continues that if these ads cause a "corrupting appearance" on TV or radio, won't they do the same thing in a newspaper or on a website?? Is Justice Thomas right when he writes, "The chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to see: outright regulation of the press." Are bloggers going to be considered as "part of the press?" Cuz that really wouldn't work for me... Yanno?
Page 1 of 1 pages
Statistics
This page has been viewed 18348512 times
Total Entries: 5718
Total Comments: 4193
Total Trackbacks: 714
Most Recent Entry: 06/14/2011 06:44 am
Most Recent Comment on: 11/27/2011 05:18 pm
{/if}
