CFR has actually opened the political debate exponentially to anyone with a subversive message and millions of dollars to buy mass media resource.
It has actually been an unplanned but hugely empowering force, albeit in a deleterious way to the integrity of our electoral process.
So, as usual, you're completely consumed by the notion that "free speech" only entails the provision of a platform and universal respect for the brilliance your particular juvenile delinquent-level intrigues.
You and the forces of ick sell a product nobody wants to buy, so it has to be Bush and First Amendment corruption.
Actually, CFR was supposed to stop groups from running ads within certain periods of time of elections. The rationale was that politicians would be beholden to groups that spoke out on behalf of them, or against their opponents. They essentially said "you cannot organize and run ads for us, or against our opponents, because it will corrupt us, therefore, we need to limit your right to free speech, because we are so corruptable."
There is a reason why Bush (and Kerry) is suing to shut these groups up. They are trying to silence them, through legal action.
Also, I'm certain you would have been as enthusiastic a proponent of CFR if it had of been passed and signed by Democrats instead of Republicans.
Bush Amnesty Storm - ping.