This should be titled, "Where There's a Will, There's No Pay."

McCain-Feingold is the only way to protect the 1st amendment and make sure every ones voice is heard not just the rich

Really? Then why can't the state GOP, to which I belong in order to pool my meager financial resources for a greater good, spend money to advertise for George Bush?

But why can Geoge Soros spend oodles to buy ads against Bush?

And why can't they run an ad a week before the Nov. 2 election saying they support candidate X for the US House over candidate Y?

And why can 60 Minutes have any number of exposes on candidates the Sunday prior to the election?

You wanna know the best campaign finance reform?

No limits on contributions to candidates, parties or PACs, but every contribution must be reported online within 24 hours of receipt. There are 5 million wannabe Drudges out there that would constantly sift through this information on a regular basis.

John:

No limits on contributions to candidates, parties or PACs, but every contribution must be reported online within 24 hours of receipt. There are 5 million wannabe Drudges out there that would constantly sift through this information on a regular basis.

Given that 90% of the wealth in this country is controlled by 10% of the people or thereabouts, unlimited contributions would give a huge advantage to wealthy americans regardless of party.

Reporting online within 24 hours would make a logistical nightmare for any political organization because of the number of dedicated staff required to post that information. Not to mention the regulatory requirements to ensure its posted. And even if its posted, there are ways, through dummy corps etc, to hide the actual donors names.

If there are 5 million Drudge wanna-bes out there to provide the checks & balances, how could anyone possibly be able to disseminate all the resulting blog entries to figure out which are legite or not. The average voter would still be swayed by a political tv ad rather than a blog entry.