We knew McCain was having a bit of a time with his own incumbent protection act. Now, the DNC is alleging he’s breaking his own law. They’re even filing with the FEC.

And in other news, it seems the Hillary camp is pandering to racists. Well, that’s what they’d be screaming in the press if a Republican leaked the photo.

Irony can be a bitch

Seems McCain is having a bit of a time with the Campaign Finance Reform that is named after, uh, McCain:

The nation’s top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall.

The prospect of being financially hamstrung by the very fundraising system he helped create is the latest in a series of bitter challenges for the presumed GOP nominee, who still faces a fractured conservative coalition as he assumes the mantle of party leadership.

Pardon me, while I laugh hysterically at you.

Rich:

It’s more than 60 days out from the general election, so I guess I’m legally allowed to answer that question, according to McCain-Feingold.

Need proof that incumbency protection err campaign finance reform is a joke:

If his campaign plays out the way he’s indicated that it will, Comedy Central and Colbert’s sponsor, Doritos, could be violating federal laws that bar corporations from backing political campaigns, election law experts say.

Seems the Incumbent Protection Act took a bit of hit. Seems four judges never heard of the first amendment. And three judges say the prior case is crap.

Good.

Looks like the supreme court will take up the incumbent protection act err campaign finance reform. Again. Maybe they’ll get it right this time? Hell, even the bill’s supporters don’t much care for it these days, including Fred Thompson.

Lame:

Apparently, if Fred Thompson does run for President, every episode of Law and Order he has been in could be yanked from the air as other candidates could require ‘equal time’ on those networks.

I hope it’s a joke. If it’s not, someone needs to get their ass kicked.

Here, Tom says:

Are some people finally going to stop calling it [McCain-Feingold] the “Incumbent Protection Act?” Because from where I sit, it looks like it did a piss-poor job of protecting incumbents

Really? Well, let’s see:

Consider that there were 435 races in the House and Senate with an incumbent trying to retain his or her seat. Only 26 – 6% — of challengers in these races have won. That’s pretty low for a “throw the bums out” election. Pending the outcome of three or four yet-to-be-determined races, this year’s 94% incumbent reelection rate appears to be slightly higher than the 90% rate of 1994.

So, it’s more like throw a small amount of the bums out. So, yeah, in a year supposedly marked by fed up and angry voters, only 6% of politicians lost their jobs. It’s a higher incumbency rate than the Republican Revolution. If that ain’t protecting incumbency, I don’t know what is.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday, Nov. 1, asking the FEC to investigate whether the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America are in violation of Federal Election Commission regulations and Federal Election Campaign Laws.

The Second Amendment Foundation does the same thing to The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership.

The NRA ended a misleading advertising campaign by anti-gun American Hunters and Shooters Association:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) succeeded in ending a misleading and false advertising campaign in Missouri produced and/or paid for by the American Hunters and Shooters Association (“AHSA”) – an anti-gun group deceptively masking itself as a pro-hunting organization. The radio advertisements contained egregiously false and misleading statements regarding the NRA.

A while back, a few of us blogs decided to stick it to the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act. I said that:

Any organization* that wants to run a political ad criticizing any politician in that window can do so here. Not only will I run the ad free, I’ll do a post on the ad on the front page.

We had many blogs agree to do the same or similar. Said movement was publicized heavily on the blogs and even got a mention in some mainstream media outlets. Well, four days until election time and, to my knowledge, not a single group took anyone up on that offer. Not. A. Single. One.

Free speech, you can’t even give it away.

Bummer.

Bruce:

I beg to differ.

And, by “differ”, I mean, “kick McCain in the balls”.

Teehee. That was in response to this:

So, according to these insufferable little weasels masquerading as duly-elected representatives of The People, the First Amendment (and by extension, I assume, the entire Bill of Rights?) is now but a “loophole”.

So last night on the TeeVee, there were wall to wall Ford and Corker commercials. Each candidate bad-mouthed the other. Yawn. Then, a commercial blasting Ford as the most liberal congressman in Tennessee came on. The commercial was put out by some Republican organization (I can’t recall which). I thought McCain-Feingold prohibited that. Or is there an exception for political parties?

Physics Geek:

My blog will change in response to FEC rules. No more quizzes, no more book or movie memes. All political advocacy all the time.

Traction Control:

This site pledges to uphold the Constitutional right to free speech by providing ad and message space to restricted organizations.

I put a notice for free ads in defiance of the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act over on the sidebar. No hits yet, which I find odd.

Anyone wanting and ad can email me at:

You can email me your ad text and a small image or I’ll give a free offer code at blogads to run your ad.

Kim du Doit reiterates his pledge and notes:

Here’s my additional thought: if a conservative political organization doesn’t place a free ad on this site (or on the many others who have also adopted my pledge) to criticize a politician, then they deserve to lose their freedom of speech for being a bunch of spineless rodents.

Ayup. R. Neal asks:

It’s curious that this doesn’t get much play in the lefty blogosphere. Are we not supposed to be concerned about this? Seems like it could help Republicans more than Democrats this time around.

Rich says:

I Don’t Accept Ads

Never have. Probably never will.

However.

I do accept editorial contributions, and those I find newsworthy will be given prominent display here at Shots Across The Bow. And since we are in an election cycle, coming up on November, it is obvious that contributions written by and about candidates for said elections are newsworthy. As such, anyone that wants to send in an editorial by or about any candidate in the upcoming elections is welcome to submit them to my regular email address, and I will see that they get the exposure they deserve.

Joe Public:

On the subject of campaign ads that name candidates, and not being able to run those ads within 60 days of an election, I think I’d like to solicit a couple. You know, to sow my wild revolutionary pamphleteer oats, or something like that.

So, when you click on Michael Silence’s story on McCain-Feingold and bloggers, do you get the John McCain ad at the top too?

Me. Michael Silence did a piece in the Knoxville News Sentinel on blogs and the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection act, which I’ve been covering here.

If only Bob Corker were an incumbent, then this video wouldn’t be plaguing him.

Appalachian Gun Trash reminds us that:

Today is the beginning of the 60 day “grace” period of the McCain-Feingold bill that makes it illegal for any organization to do a TV or radio spot about a candidate for Federal office.

Here’s my offer:

Any organization* that wants to run a political ad criticizing any politician in that window can do so here. Not only will I run the ad free, I’ll do a post on the ad on the front page.

Anyone wanting such an ad can email me at:

You can email me your ad text and a small image or I’ll give a free offer code at blogads to run your ad.

Update: Glenn says:

It’s wrong, it’s unAmerican, and it’s the single best argument against either McCain or Feingold running for President in 2008.

Update 2: Bill’s sort of in:

here’s another suggestion for groups wishing to continue running commercials criticizing candidates by name: Make the ads, then upload them to YouTube, and spread them via blogs. BillHobbs.com will be happy to carry commercials criticizing incumbent Democrats.

As is Alan.

More blogs in on the action here (scroll down).

Seen at No Silence Here:

Federal election regulators refused to ease limits on political advertising Tuesday, blocking an effort to let interest groups run radio and television ads mentioning elected officials within weeks of an election.

The Federal Election Commission voted 3-3 on a proposal that would have allowed such ads as long as they addressed public policy issues and did not promote, support, oppose or attack a sitting member of Congress. Supporters of the change said they wanted to strike a balance between campaign ad restrictions and constitutional free speech guarantees.

The measure failed on a tie vote with the commission’s three Democrats voting against the proposal and the three Republicans backing it.

With 70 days left before this year’s general election, the change could have let loose a wave of unrestricted ad spending in the weeks leading up to Election Day. The vote lets stand a provision in the 2002 campaign finance law that requires independent groups to limit the contributions and to disclose the donors of money used to pay for ads that run within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

He linked you to a category. If you’re curious what I’m talking about, see here. Make your own pledge for free speech:

Any organization* that wants to run a political ad criticizing any politician in the McCain-Feingold 60-day window can do so here. Not only will I run the ad free, I’ll do a post on the ad on the front page.

S&C is in too.

Many more bloggers have signed up to stick it to the incumbent protection act:

Misha:

The First Amendment means what it says, and if the Federal Gummint wishes to sue us for exercising our rights, then go right ahead. The Second Amendment means what it says too, in case you’ve forgotten.

Chris:

The McCain Feingold campaign finance law is unconstitutional, and another step on the road to tyranny. It is, in present form, just able to be born; If the congress should attempt to extend it’s powers even further, it is our duty as free men to disobey.

Oscar Poppa:

The McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, aka Campaign Finance Reform which suspends those First Amendment rights. If you’ve been under a rock for a while, the bill effectively puts a ban on ads that mention federal candidates’ names in the window 60 days before the general election. In other words, the Holier-Than Thou’s have made a law that abridges the freedom of speech and press.

DirtCrashr is in too.

Make a pledge for free speech:

Any organization* that wants to run a political ad criticizing any politician in that window can do so here. Not only will I run the ad free, I’ll do a post on the ad on the front page.

Update: And a thirty aught six is in too.

First, Kim. Then me. Then xrlq and Jolie Rouge. Now, two more of joined the pledge that the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection act err Campaign Finance Reform doesn’t apply to them:

Countertop is in.

As is Traction Control.

And Citizen’s Arrest is up for it too.

Bitter would but she has no ads. I hope to remedy that soon. You can also just do posts about ads.

And I hear another guy is thinking about it.

Will you take a pledge for free speech:

Any organization* that wants to run a political ad criticizing any politician in that window can do so here. Not only will I run the ad free, I’ll do a post on the ad on the front page.

Seen at Kim’s:

When Congress comes back into session, roughly 60 days before the November midterms, it will essentially be immune from criticism. That’s because Congress—acting, of course, only in the interest of “clean” politics—passed a ban on ads that mention federal candidates’ names in the window 60 days before the general election, as part of McCain-Feingold in 2002.

So, say the Senate takes up an immigration bill granting full amnesty to all illegal immigrants this fall—it will be almost impossible for grassroots groups to advertise against it, because they won’t be able to run ads during this period naming the people who are sponsoring or voting on the bills. Criticizing them by name during this window is against the law. You can’t ask voters to “call Congressman [So-and-So].”

First of all, that’s retarded. Secondly, I’ll continue to say whatever I choose to say on this here blog. Kim pledged:

If a conservative organization wants to run a political ad criticizing any Congressman up for re-election during that 60-day window, I’ll let them run one on this website, for free, right up until Election Day.

I’ll go a step further:

Any organization* that wants to run a political ad criticizing any politician in that window can do so here. Not only will I run the ad free, I’ll do a post on the ad on the front page.

I advise other bloggers to offer the same.

* The organization must pass the Uncle Sanity Test, i.e., no NAMBLA, Peta, or other weirdo extremists.