Why Don't Repukes

[maxrandb]

have to claim the close to 5,000 hours of shi-ite a year that comes from the likes of Limpballs, InSanity, Savage, O'Really, Ken Hammond and the thousands of local AM parrots, as "in kind" campaign contributions?

Are there some smart DU legal types that can tell me why these folks can't be sued for the terrible harm they do to our country and our political discourse?

Also, whatever happened to the push from the military in Stars and Stripes that wanted to get Rush off of the Armed Forces Network? I still can't believe he broadcasts on a DOD radio network.

[moez]

1. It's a bitch, I agree

But, it's also free speech....

[Bandit]

6. Where does it say in UCMJ that the military can be politicized?

Free Speech is one thing in America but the Military is another matter entirely. The military is quite specific in politicizing it's people. How can they justify Rush being on Armed Forces Radio three hours a day every day with no counter-balance. It is unconscionable.

[Sir_Shrek]

2. My very amateurish guess

An "in-kind" contribution is better recognized as something like this: If you hold a fundraiser for a candidate, and it is catered, the cost of the catering is an in-kind contribution. It is not necessarily money, but it is a payment made in furtherance of the campaign and for the benefit of the campaign. You are feeding the recipient of the campaign and/or employees of his campaign as well as financial supporters.

I don't think a radio show can be considered to be a contributor. It could be viewed that if a radio show could be considered a contributor to a political campaign simply based on the views it broadcasts, then ultimately that radio station or program would have to be censored lest it make any further contributions beyond the limit allowed by the FEC. Ultimately, that would bring up a First Amendment issue.

There's probably a simpler explanation, but that's mine.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

3. Because then any political speech cold be viewed as in-kind contributions

That same treatment would apply to moveon.org or other similar things.

Let's not go there.

[nannygoat]

4. I don't think your comparison of MoveOn.org with

the likes of Faux "News" commentators and AM parrots is a fair comparison.

From Fair.org:

"The public owns the airwaves that radio and TV stations use and profit from. Media companies are allowed to use them on the condition that they serve the public; it’s part of the FCC’s job to enforce that."

http://www.fair.org/activism/fcc-factsheet.html

We all know that the FCC isn't doing its job but to compare huge corporations with a grassroots (albeit well-funded and well-organized) group of organized citizens isn't a fair comparison.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

5. I see your point, but

for even greater accuracy, FauxNews also wouldn't apply because it's a cable outfit that doesn't use the broadcast airwaves (remembering that Fox Entertainment and FauxNews are independent organizations under the same corporate umbrella).