>>A television ad in which the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and a former speaker, Newt Gingrich, warn about the dangers of climate change may violate federal election law, according to two campaign finance lawyers.
>>
>>Lawyers said the rules apply, regardless of whether the ads are intended to aid the campaign. “The reformers including Speaker Pelosi insisted on this blanket prohibition,” Mr. Baran said. “Well-meaning ads still violate the statute.”
>>
>>“Pelosi has been a big cheerleader of all of this,” Mr. Bopp added. “I’ve been arguing that these rules were going to entangle a member of Congress when they’re simply doing their job working with a nonprofit group. Well, here it is.”
>>
>>Mr. Gore’s group and Ms. Pelosi may soon find themselves adopting arguments conservatives have long made against the federal rules. “The only defense has got to be that it’s unconstitutional,” Mr. Baran said.
>>
>>http://nysun.com/news/national/lawyers-say-ad-featuring-pelosi-may-violate-election-law
>>
>>Hopefully this will lead to the reversal of the incumbent-friendly anti-speech campaign finance laws. I won't hold my breath.
>
>
>Thank you for reminding me what money pouring into politics from corporations really is: a free speech issue. I will make a note of this so I remember it from now on.

My general response is to point out that there's more money in politics now than ever and in the next cycle there will be more still. The sources stay the same they just distribute differently. In addition the election cycle is now longer than ever as a direct result of the need to raise more money from more sources.

My more specific response is to direct your attention to the laws that now prevent broadcast advertising mentioning a candidate by name within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention and 60 days of a general election. Originally intended to apply to corporations and unions it was later amended to apply to non-profits and other incorporated entities. This was challenged all the way to the Supreme Court by such diverse organizations as the California State Democratic Party and the NRA and was upheld by a 5-4 vote. Hence, the Supreme Court reinforced a severe restriction on political speech.