tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post8390156494440946749..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-82252136238317143532007-10-25T17:14:00.000-05:002007-10-25T17:14:00.000-05:00Imagine this attack ad:<BR/>deep booming voice:<BR/>"Matt Kelty will say anything to get elected......"<BR/>flip-flops...<BR/>waffles...<BR/>outrageous mendacities, and parsed half truths....<BR/>Karl Rove( thought id see if you were paying attention)<BR/>anyway- kelty is getting the "My silence speaks volumes" treatment by Tom Henry, although I wish he'd pulled the old ronald reagan quip- "I wont make an issue of my opponents inexperience, pending indictments, and queer views on church state relations"<BR/>And Kelty almost fired up henry with "there you go again".<BR/>I fear Indiana is becoming an "Idiocracy", and I'm the last surviving sane, intelligent citizen remaining...<BR/><BR/><BR/>I wish the election laws would be changed, so the far right, and the far left could form their own parties, and let the rest of us sane, centrist, fiscal conservative/social liberals get some good legislators, mayors, and other govt officials.David C Roachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03001418779103813547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-64041952276999817222007-10-23T08:00:00.000-05:002007-10-23T08:00:00.000-05:00As I recall the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld disclosure statutes except in those cases (the rolls of the N.A.A.C.P back in the 60's)when such disclsure was thought to endanger a targeted minority. There just doesn't seem to be a viable argument concerning who can or can't fund campaigns on First Amendment grounds at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com