<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on Today&#8217;s Opinion in the Vermont Cases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/more-on-todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/more-on-todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/2006/06/more-on-todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/#comment-9971</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/more-on-todays-opinion-in-the-vermont-cases/#comment-9971</guid>
		<description>Federalism includes protecting federally secured rights.
Modern campaign finance laws have not generally significantly reduced legislators needing to take time out to raise funds, matters that can be at least partially addressed in other ways than reducing to a tiny amount the funds allowed to be spent to spread messages, promote political associations, and so forth.
This is telling. The opinion &lt;i&gt;supports&lt;/i&gt; regulations, just only up to a point. At some point, they interfere with the ability to properly run for office and promote messages, including against well entrenched incumbants or popular (if in now way necessarily true) &quot;conventional wisdom.&quot;
The balance in part will require some efforts from those running for office. The 1A is not a costfree enterpise. Finally, as noted elsewhere in the discussion, &quot;blind allegiance&quot; is a bit exaggerated as well.
The criticism here is overblown.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Federalism includes protecting federally secured rights.</p>
<p>Modern campaign finance laws have not generally significantly reduced legislators needing to take time out to raise funds, matters that can be at least partially addressed in other ways than reducing to a tiny amount the funds allowed to be spent to spread messages, promote political associations, and so forth.</p>
<p>This is telling. The opinion <i>supports</i> regulations, just only up to a point. At some point, they interfere with the ability to properly run for office and promote messages, including against well entrenched incumbants or popular (if in now way necessarily true) &#8220;conventional wisdom.&#8221;</p>
<p>The balance in part will require some efforts from those running for office. The 1A is not a costfree enterpise. Finally, as noted elsewhere in the discussion, &#8220;blind allegiance&#8221; is a bit exaggerated as well.</p>
<p>The criticism here is overblown.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

