Judge puts parts of contribution-limits law on hold


  1. Qui Tam says:

    This gives meaning to the old adage, he who has the gold rules.

    Oh goody.

    (“The GOP lawsuit challenged the limits on several points, but the underlying issue – freedom of speech – came largely in response to the Citizens United decision. More than once the lawsuit claimed a provision in the law is “unconstitutional because it burdens and chills First Amendment speech and associational rights without adequate justification and is not properly tailored, thereby failing constitutional scrutiny.””


    “it burdens and chills First Amendment speech”

    don’t worry Mr. Hassamen, I won’t put you thru me speaking freely! :) ) LOL!

    But, can I shout? REPEAL CITIZENS UNITED!