Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (10694)	2/7/2002 5:21:21 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Actually, this particular legislation has not been tested, so we shall see. Yes, the Supreme Court let them get a foot in the door with regulating direct contributions to the candidates,.... True. We don't even know what the legislation is yet...potential of amendments. But the Court also said that limits could be placed on soft money as well...and that's what this one is about. I think if Hastert thought that the specific language of this legislation was unconstitutional he would be saying that pretty loudly. He considers Democrats to have advantages that only soft money can counter........ I've seen that. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to decipher the basis for it. There are some words thrown about, such as was in that story, but nothing that I can see is a distinct or unfair advantage... If you can explain the "advantage", I'd like to hear what it is. jttmab