Shecky, this was passed in bi-partisan fashion, and had originally been pushed (for YEARS) by democrat senator Tim Green.

Try knowing what you’re talking about before you attempt to educate me on such issues.

And while I’m at it, shecky, would you please provide for all of us why you think it is unconstitutional to NOT have a contribution limit for candidates?

I’m SO waiting for this one!

Feel free to consult with Garrison or Roy Temple on this one, but I’ll give you a hint: contributions by themselves were NOT rules unconstitutional.

Bark elsewhere.

Jim, the GOP pushed this bill through, Matt Blunt pushed this bill through, and other than Tim Green and a couple of other Democrats, this thing was about as bipartisan as Matt Blunt’s medicaid cuts. Sorry pal, go sell your nonsense elsewhere. It was the GOP that made this change possible. Like I said before, if a Democrat were governor and Democrats were in the majority, this sucker wouldn’t have been made law. Your party made it possible, so your party gets the blame.

Why do you have such an issue with taking responsibility? Seems like a lot of Republicans were patting themselves on the back when they passed the changes.

As far as the GOP changes to the law getting the boot, it was the Supreme Court that threw out the changes to the law, not me. If you’ve got a beef with it, then talk to the bipartisan majority on the court who voted to dump the changes. Granted it was the voters of the state who put the limits in place, but we all know what you Republicans think about the voters.

Why don’t you try barking at yourself for a while.

Shecky, I’ll grant you that the majority of those supporting the bill were republicans. But the issue had been raised for years, quite vocally, by Green. If you can’t accept that much, sorry.

Meanwhile, I’m asking YOU to explain to me how the mere absence of contribution limits is unconstitutional, since you’re such an expert. The court ruled that the ORIGINAL contribution limits, passed by voters, were unconstitutional, but they did NOT rule that the absence of contribution limits were.

There was an entirely different part of the bill that was thrown out.

For you to sit there on your high horse claiming that the absence of contribution limits was unconstitutional, and that these candidates (of both parties) violated the constitution by raising money above and beyond the previous limits is BS.

I don’t expect you to understand that, though.

Jim, I said Green and a handful of other Democrats voted for it. And I know Green wanted the bill, but that’s beside the point that it was because of the GOP majority and Matt Blunt that it became law. I’m not arguing with you at all about Green’s support.

And I’m hardly sitting on a high horse here. You’re the one who takes himself way too seriously. Get over it. The GOP passed a bad law, the court through it out, and in order to ensure that all candidates in the current cycle operated on an level playing field, the court required everyone to give back the money.

It’s not hard to figure out, and it’s entirely because of how your party passed the stinking law. No one but the GOP is to blame, so deal with it.

No, shecky, you’re suggesting that by merely collecting contributions, candidates were violating the constitution, and you’re dead-wrong.

I’m still waiting for you to share with us, from your massive cup of knowledge, exactly what is unconstitutional about the absence of contribution limits, which existed from 1821 till 1994.

I keep giving you this hint: it isn’t.

You just don’t want to understand.

Jim, I’m not the one who claims to know it all. That’s your role, remember? If you’d bother to unbury your head from its partisan chamber, you might realize that I haven’t suggested the limits themselves were unconstitutional. The way that your party made those changes was unconstitutional, and as such, they were booted by the court. Deal with it. Get over yourself. And stop looking for so many arguments. I realize your party is collapsing all around you, but does that mean you really have to be such an angry SOB all the time?