Quote:
Originally posted by Rich
lol, hopefully with your huge "tax cut" you can buy yourself a clue.
|
If you assumed I was defending the legislation regulating speech, or Bush's position on the matter, I was not. If you think I'm simply misinformed about the Federal Election Campaign Act, it's possible, but the last I heard:
Quote:
Prohibited contributions and expenditures: The law prohibits corporations, labor organizations, federal government contractors and foreign nationals from making any contributions and expenditures to influence federal elections.[ 11 ] It also prohibits contributions to federal elections in another person's name and prohibits cash contributions in federal elections of more than $100.
Identification requirements: While "independent expenditures" by individuals or groups are unrestricted, where any expenditure finances communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or soliciting contributions through any general public political advertising, the communication must identify the party responsible by name and indicate whether or not it is authorized by the campaign.
|
(Source:
http://www.cdt.org/speech/political/financereport.shtml)
Is howardstern.com expressly advocating the defeat of George W. Bush? It's debatable, and I'm sure Stern's attorneys are carefully tiptoeing around the issue. Look on the site and there's a section of "Friggin Bush" links, all critical of Bush, and Stern says "Vote out every Republican you can find," but that assiduously avoids advocating the defeat of a "clearly identified candidate." I don't listen to his show, so I don't know, but has he explicitly advocated Bush's defeat? Or is he just criticizing him and his positions?