Does McCain/Feingold really ban ads within 60 days of an election?

[CTLawGuy]

I've heard this thrown around, but I cannot find such a provision in the text of the law itself and I cannot find the place where the Supreme Court talks about this so-called ban.

Can anyone point out the part of the text where such a ban appears?

thanks

[Ficus]

1. it does

only group sponsored ads, (eg Harry and Louise, or MoveOn.org type ads)

I think it's 30 days before primaries, and 60 days before the GE.

[CTLawGuy]

3. can you quote me section and subsection in the bill

because I havent seen such a provision in the bill

[Ficus]

5. can't find it

but I think it was the Snowe-Jeffords section that contains this language. I'll continue to look...

[ithacan]

2. if so it's bad

because the media is so dominated by pro-Bush forces, this pro-bush bias will be present in every newscast in that last month. it seems outrageous that groups cannot take out political ads to counter that bias in the last few weeks and days before the election.

[Ficus]

4. I like McCain-Feingold

this is a great first step to taking corporate influence out.

Corporations and the conservative lobby will have far more money to spend than groups like MoveOn.org, no matter how much Soros gives. I think we need this.

[ithacan]

8. so how do you counter the lies of the corporate media?

that's the challenge; the corporations control how the stories are spun, what gets covered, etc., and can out and out lie about the democratic candidate and issues.

If we can't take out ads to counter those lies, and don't have access to mass media, then how will we counter the media bias and lies?

[YNGW]

6. This law was appropriately named the...

.... Incumbent Re-election Law. I'm of the opinion we're getting ready to find out why in 2004. Independent groups can't put out ads questioning the positions of those running. It was presented in such a way to keep groups from saying things right before the election that the candidates couldn't answer because of time restraints. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it got through, it seems to be a violation of free speech to me. If a group of people at DU pooled their money to run a series of TV ads exposing Bush, they can't do it now within 60 days of the election. Well, who's gonna remember an ad over 60 days out? Most people don't even pay attention until the last month. So private citizens want to have an input? Not anymore.

[Ficus]

7. in an ideal world

it's be like you described. But these ads are mostly tools of big business. And we stand to lose more from that than Republicans. It all comes down to the resources available. We don't win or lose elections on TV anyways.

We need to learn to win through solid grassroots organizing, and well planned efforts such as a kick ass GOTV. If Dean has anything going for him that Bush doesn't, it's that. And that's mostly all we have to compete with the big bux.

[kclown]

9. No it doesn't. McCain was eloquent about that.

The requirement is that any advertiser in the 60/30 day window
who uses a candidate's name must register with the F.E.C. This
is to prevent fly-by-night groups like "Republicans for
Clean Air" from running sudden massive ad campaigns
within days of an election.  

[CTLawGuy]

11. thanks for that post

There was NO discussion of any ban on issue ads in the Supreme Court case, and no such ban found within the text of the legislation.

[Bombtrack]

10. The ACLU and the AFL-CIO were way against it

as well as republican groups like the NRA and US chamber of commerce