A good tweak

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 12:18, June 26, 2007 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (New page: {{item |author=Los Angeles Times editorial board |source=Los Angeles Times |date=June 26, 2007 |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-ads26jun26,0,4651911.story |quote="Monday's de...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) Los Angeles Times editorial board
Source Los Angeles Times
Date June 26, 2007
URL http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-ads26jun26,0,4651911.story
Quote
Quotes-start.png "Monday's decision addresses what even some supporters of the law recognized as its constitutional Achilles' heel. Congress was concerned that some issue ads were veiled ads for or against a candidate — as they were. But in creating a net that would remove phony issue ads from the airwaves, McCain-Feingold arguably hauled in genuine issue ads — those designed to affect a legislator's vote, not to reelect (or de-elect) him." Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues for the position Supreme Court was right to strike down "Wellstone Amendment" on the topic Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.