Support Clean Free Elections
I’ll second Uncle’s offer, adding a couple of minor caveats of my own:
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.***
Like Uncle, I advise other bloggers to offer the same.
*The organization must pass the Xrlq Sanity Test, e.g., no NAMBLA, PETA, or other weirdo extremists.
**I reserve the right to withdraw or limit this offer at any time, for any reason or for no reason. As a practical matter, I probably won’t withdraw or limit it unless I get deluged with requests, in which case I’ll have little choice
***Depending on the content of the ad and my attitude at the time it runs, you may or may not like what I have to say in said post.
August 8th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Cool. Glad to hear it. There’s a reporter interested in the free ad offer and how blogs are a means after mccain-feingold.
August 9th, 2006 at 3:38 am
I’m interested. But brand-new to blogging. No readership, and currently, no ads. But I’ll keep this in mind as I keep blogging. It’s a great idea.
August 9th, 2006 at 7:32 am
Great idea. I’m definitely in for this one.
August 9th, 2006 at 8:38 am
[...] Xrlq, who apparently takes issue with my use of i.e., makes a similar pledge with some caveats. He supports clean free elections. [...]
August 9th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Xrlq, by defying a law backed up by a Supreme Court ruling, are you risking disbarment?
August 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
How am I defying the law?
August 11th, 2006 at 9:33 am
[...] 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: [...]
August 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
I was under the impression that you are defying the campaign finance reform law. Aren’t you? If not, what is this pertaining to?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of defying that law and if I had ads on my site I would join you, but I was wondering if it’s not the case that a lawyer has a lot more to lose doing this than most people do.
August 12th, 2006 at 6:48 am
Well, I am trying to help defeat the purpose of a bad law, but I don’t think I’m violating the letter, or even the spirit according to its supporters. After all, the supporters say “money is not speech.” OK, then, we’ll just have speech, sans money.
But your point is an interesting one, I will look into it further to make sure what I’m advocating really is a completely legal way to avoid the effects of a bad law, and not an arguably illegal act in itself.