Now It's Personal: John McCain's Attack On My First Amendment Rights

it's also a way to get the influence out of politics
federal funded elections is the way to go.

as for ron paul.. he is against mccain feigngold but supports reform to get the money out of gov, in the form of earmarks and other favors performed for these large campaign donations..

i see and agree with a lot of ron pauls complaints and your critisms but the fact is, we cant continue with status quo, mccain fiegngold may not be the ultimate answer but IMO it is far betetr than status quo.. as A the incumbants win already mainly do to how lucrative committee assignements are doled out.
B incumbants already know all the lobbiests and have their personal phone numbers.. so they are more likely and have a greater ability to raise up campaign cash, unlike your "challengers"
C; ron paul got most of his money from little donations and has more money than any of the candidates and all that he has done has been legal under mccain fiengold.

I get your complaints and pauls, but IMO mccain fiegngold is better than status quo..
we all know we have to do somethign about the money influence in gov.. and every few years this crap comes up and every few years, we do nothing.
peopel find complaints in every fix.. i am sure you an find a couple in "federal funding" but the facts are.. status quo isnt working and at the very least mccain fiengold is a nice change fromt he status quo of screaming about finace reforma nd then doing absolutely nothing about it.

Hey, hanging a sign in a headquarters window is even forbidden. Does that makesense?

it's forbidden if the total attached expense is over $5k, right? do some creative accounting. use the laws your party has created to make capitalism work for ya.

Again... that $5K applies to the WHOLE STATE, not just my county. And what they're taking into account is not the cost of the sign, but the cost of the facilitie in which that sign is displayed.

but, again, this is a limit, not a ban. i would imagine that for every person like you who feels restricted by the limit, there are 10 who are grateful for it. this isnt a ban on freedom of speech. this is a way to level the playing field. the reason should be clear — compare the amount of money spent in each state by each candidate for each primary and the correlation between ad money and votes is pretty clear.

i dont get how a limit is a ban. it sounds like the state parties need to do a better job at managing their expenses if they cant get done what they want to get done within the boundaries of the law.

Your missing the point. I AM and FEC candidate and what this means is I cannot leave any material at a GOP office nor can I bring ANY material to a county or district meeting. Big Deal? Well a well funded candidate can use air time out the wazoo but a grassroot guy is limited. Going to a county meeting, a district meeting, or standing at a fairbooth is a cheap way to meet people and it means I have to show up. This limit basically means someone working on a budget is limited but those that have tons of money are free to spend it on advertising.

Okay, so if I have a stack of info, and leave it at your station, then I would have to take your overhead into account for my own?

Does that apply to all places where this literature might be found, in say a bar?

No tree saving?? And, here I was trying to find an up-side . . .

humm, sounds asinine to me.

That would be like one small business who leaves business cards in another, getting to claim deductions based on the other's cost of business.

'round and 'round we go.

What it does do is forbid Republican Party HQs from being allowed to pass out campaign materials for federal candidates.

You keep say this sort of thing as if the Democrats are not under the same limits.
Its a good way to keep big money from running the election.

* The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion; * The proliferation of issue ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act

And, by the way, McCain Feingold hasn't stopped

Its not suppose to stop anything; its suppose to control how much.

You admit it is not direct solely at the Republicans, so stop the complaining and get on with your life.

Soros-funded groups from their relentless attacks on Republicans, or union activities in support of Democrats, or the Washington Post, or the New York Times.

I would like some examples of these so called Soros groups and the others you mention were not set up as Democratic institutions.

And, of course, the Wasnington Post, New York Times, CNN and other liberl shillls can attack consrvatives all they want without any restrictions.

Here is where you are dead wrong: none of those are liberal; they are big corporations which are conservative. One proof of that was the the way they have let Bush rampage with very little criticism and how they beat the war drums for Iraq, never really questioning anything ,when Bush was lying to everyone.

I see you left out the Swifites from 2004.

All this showed me is that the rules haven't been enforced and since the Republicans were running all facets of government then, maybe you need to take it up with them.

Bernie Goldberg is anything but a liberal, O'Reilly even likes him.

Again those Main stream media outlets you mentioned did nothing to question the rush to war even though there were many unanswered questions for one reason: war sells and like all conservative outlets money is everything.

Who cares where the Swifites rank: they were just a bunch of lying fanatics who put party politics before the truth and smeared a war hero. The fact remains the money goes both ways.

We just have to agree to disagree.

I agree

How are you dealing w/Hillary calling MSNBC and complain about a very bad taste comment about her daughter?

Stalin era in the USA if our Evita is President?

I have a problem with the Quid Pro Quo of the Senators endorsing McCain.

Thanks for the head up. I will check the AJC right now. I will not endorse them when their reelection come. Easy.

cutty,

Chambliss is for reelection - well, his brotherhood with the other Senators is going to cost him to go to the benches.

From the AJC:

Said Sadie Fields, chairman of the Georgia Christian Alliance:

"We honor both our senators and hold them in high esteem, but this is disappointing."

Fields predicted that the impact would be felt at the grassroots level. "It just takes the winds out of their sails."

Four Georgia congressmen who support Romney held a conference call on Saturday, in which they dismissed the endorsement of McCain by Isakson and Chambliss as an example of Senate "clubiness."

"The Senate's a universe of 100 people. They almost seem to be removed from their constituents. I don't know if they sprinkle them with some sort of dust or whatever," said U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Coweta County.

Cutty - Sounds to me as if you are becoming a non-establishment Republican. Assuming that Ann Coulter is to be believed, let's assume that we are all three non-establishment people. Obama is surely the establishment in many ways, not Clinton. And McCain is now the establishment candidate, not Romney.

I will write my Senators to start looking for another Republican to replace them.

This "club" thing hit the nail in the head.