[Wolfstar]

But the Bush administration, which is defending the law, wrote in a brief that such an argument "assumes a clean divide between lobbying and electioneering communications that simply does not exist in the real world." "Advertisements exhorting interested citizens to contact their elected representatives may also have the purpose of influencing those citizens' votes," the government added.

Oh, geezzzz. On this one, I strongly part company with the Congress (McCain-Feingold), President Bush (who signed it), the Justice Department (which defends it) and the Supreme Court (its first decision upholding this terrible law). What could be more clear than this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

McCain-Feingold was supposed to clean up politics. Yet now we are on the cusp of the latest Congressional money-and-lobbying scandal. McCain-Feingold can only be considered an abject failure at its supposed core purpose, although it succeeds in abridging the people's freedom of speech and right to petition the Government.

[jocon307]

"McCain-Feingold was supposed to clean up politics."

I wish I cuuld even believe in the sincerity of their motives. But all I can remember is McCain's "stop me before I get bribed again" remarks, which caused me to lose all respect for him and his sponsorship of this law. Maybe Feingold is sincere, I never heard he was corrupt in anyway, quite the opposite, but of course I could be wrong.

It is my opinion that what these pols (in both parties) want is to get so much regulation on the books that eventually they'll be back to paper bags of cash, passed under the table.