GRAYWOLF's Brain Farts

I certainly hope so, just as they should do a through investigation into Clinton & Bomers 'fund raising' and the ppl they associate with. The place smells.

don't doubt it, Graywolf. And I don't doubt the other candidates have some unexplainable "donations" somewhere in that maze of paperwork.

UCHTT, you are absolutely correct, I posted this because he wrote the unconstitutional piece of legislation and has violated it repeatedly.

So far, nothing has been done about any of it.

Scotty, it is bad enough for a politician to violate a law (constitutionality not withstanding), but to be the author of it makes it even worse.

The post asked the question: Is the media going to cover this? The first sentence of the second paragraph of the post's attachment begins: Recent news reports suggest.... This indicates to me that it was the media that first made everyone aware of the incident. I believe that Fox News also reported this incident a few weeks ago. Consequently, the answer to the post's question is yes.

With regard to the Constitutionality of the law in question, it has not been found to be unconstitutional by any Court at this time.

I would like everyone to send me a dollar so I can run in 2012. Better make that a dollar a week.
WHO GIVES A FLYING F##K, both sides have been doing it for years. By the way GW, how much have you give? None? Don't sweat the small stuff. You will live longer.

Well, at least you gave to better our world, Cool.

Hillary???

Mark:

With regard to media coverage, I should have expanded my comment by writing that if the media had been able to find anything newsworthy, other than the appearance of a violation of the fund raising law, they would have or will make that information available to the public. If it is later revealed that there was a violation of law, Senator McCain must address the issue.

With regard to the Constitutional issue: On 6-25-07, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. The case involved 3 specific ads by Wisconsin Right to Life. The Court ruled that Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is unconstitutional as applied to those 3 ads. The Court wrote that the 3 ads were genuine issue ads, not express advocacy or its "functional eqivalent" under McConnell (McConnell v Federal Election Commission). Consequently, Section 203 of the BCRA is unconstitutional only with regard to genuine issue ads. Section 203 remains constitutional with regard to express advocacy or "functional eqivalent" ads.

Does any of this actually surprise you? I know we may differ on our opinions on who should be president, but none of this should be a surprise. Politicians pretty much do what they want until they are caught.

BTW Char- who is Bomer? Never heard of him/her. Just curious.

You would think the media would be on top of this one, but I guess they have their own agenda too- and it's not in "reporting" the news.

I know who she means, just poking fun at her. You have to have a sense of humor about all this, there is far too much to laugh at to let it all go to waste.