[justshutupandtakeit]

So you don't understand the CFR Act either, I note. It is false that the NRA cannot advertise in print AT ANY TIME it wishes. I will bet you have never even read the law but just swallow whatever favored interpreter says about it. The NRA can also advertise in the electronic media at any time as long as it is not a sneak attack.

The law in no way contradicts the beliefs of most of the founders who did not want the elections to be controlled by powerful, anonymous interest groups. It attempts to achieve some degree of transparency wrt these ads.

It appears that most of what those attacking this law do not have a clue about what it REALLY says. Only an absolute fool will be hindered by it.

It is not unconstitutional. Maybe unwise or ineffectual or dumb but not uC.

[Godebert]

"So you don't understand the CFR Act either, I note. It is false that the NRA cannot advertise in print AT ANY TIME it wishes. I will bet you have never even read the law but just swallow whatever favored interpreter says about it. The NRA can also advertise in the electronic media at any time as long as it is not a sneak attack."

Excerpted from Wayne LaPierre's column in American Rifleman:

The law in question, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCFR), makes pre-election broadcasts of issue advertising--by groups such as the NRA or the Sierra Club, and all labor unions--a crime if the government can claim those ads refer in any way to a politician running for federal office. Under BCRA, it will be a felony for the NRA, using corporate funds, even to refer to a "Schumer bill" or a "Feinstein amendment" if those words are aired in any broadcast media 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days before a general election and can be heard or viewed anywhere in their home states of New York or California. Even use of the term "The President" in such an ad is a prohibited criminal act---nationwide.

"The law in no way contradicts the beliefs of most of the founders who did not want the elections to be controlled by powerful, anonymous interest groups. It attempts to achieve some degree of transparency wrt these ads."

Going by your views of what the founders thought of the 2nd Amendment, your opinion of what they thought on the 1st Amendment is hardly suprising.

"It appears that most of what those attacking this law do not have a clue about what it REALLY says. Only an absolute fool will be hindered by it."

So Justice Scalia is a "fool" in your eyes?

"The Freedom to associate with others for the dissemination of ideas...by pooling financial resources for expressive purposes---is part of the freedom of speech".------Justice Scalia.

"It is not unconstitutional. Maybe unwise or ineffectual or dumb but not uC."

Take a good look folks....is this what passes for "Conservatism" these days on Freerepublic?

[William Tell]

justshutupandtakeit said: "It [CFR] is not unconstitutional."

Let's see.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ...

I see no exception involving the timing of elections. Perhaps you could explain.

[spunkets]

"It is false that the NRA cannot advertise in print AT ANY TIME it wishes."

No it is not. The NRA and all other groups are limited as to what they can do in fed elections by fed law. Everyone of those laws is unconstitutionalal. Whether they are spending limits, donation limits, or prohibitions and rules on coordination of activities, they are unconstitutional on their face. Notwithstanding the claims of anyone, including the SCOTUS.