It has always amazed me how the federal courts interpret the US Constitution, especially the First amendment. Burning the US flag is protected political speech, but political blogging may not be. One of the core tenants of the First Amendment is free political speech, yet it seems that the campaign finance reformers want to curtail that right under some convoluted idea that political blogging is a campaign contribution. In my opinion, blogging is the electronic version of the old town square and as such is protected political speech. To me there is no convolution there. This is a simple issue being made complicated by McCain-Feingold, the Federal Courts and the FEC.
In his article, 'Dream Palace of the Goo-Goos', Scott Johnson looks into what these campaign finance reform zealots may actually want and how we got to this point. - Sailor