Will it matter? Andy Sullivan writing in Reuters suggests not. I actually said the same thing not long ago this morning when writing about Mitt Romney’s deferments.

Of the 18 announced Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, only Republicans John McCain and Duncan Hunter have served on the front lines. Three others served in noncombat roles and another two served in the reserves.

Voters aren’t likely to care very much, experts say.

“I just don’t think we expect that obligation, and that’s because we don’t expect it of ourselves either,” said Bruce Altschuler, a Vietnam veteran and political science professor at the State University of New York at Oswego.

Though of course I am always leery of the term “expert” and always leery when only one or two are quoted. With that looking at the last few elections it doesn’t really seem to matter much to voters.

As noted the Supreme Court struck down limitations on campaign advertising in a challenge to the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. From The Hill McCain has now responded:

It is regrettable that a split Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception by which some corporate and labor expenditures can be used to target a federal candidate in the days and weeks before an election,” McCain said. “It is important to recognize, however, that the Court’s decision does not affect the principal provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which bans federal officeholders from soliciting soft money contributions for their parties to spend on their campaigns

The court weakened a provision in the law that strictly limited ads paid for with corporate and union money within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. It ruled that the law violated the First Amendment rights of Wisconsin Right to Life, which was prevented from running ads urging voters to contact Democratic Sens. Herb Kohl (Wis.) and Russ Feingold (Wis.) about a filibuster of judicial nominees.

Read the rest of this entry »

Two biographical ads are reportedly set to launch in Iowa. You can check out Video 1 - Entitled ‘Carry’ as well as Video 2 - Entitled - ‘Choices’

TechPresident has been keeping tabs on the Edwards campaign’s use of text-messages for fundraising. According to the campaign their major push last week to contact the cell phones of those who signed up and ask for money was a big success. They didn’t offer any numbers though.

As noted previously it is being reported Edwards is having difficulty raising money and so this cell phone measure, though innovative, was also kind of a last ditch attempt to get some buzz before the end of Q2.

TechPresident likes the way Edwards implemented the fundraising but wonders if it will be as successful in the future. Why? Because, as the post rightly points out, people tend to be a little guarded about the messages coming into and out of the cell phone and the power of having that number could easily be overused/abused. It seems innovative the first message, the next one, if not useful or if it “feels” annoying could cause some problems.

Also linked to that idea is the “unsubscribe” feature of the system allowing those who signed up to get taken off immediately if they do feel intruded upon. Good roundup!

The Supreme Court loosened restrictions on ads, a decision which could reshape some dynamics in the 2008 election.

The court, split 5-4, upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group’s First Amendment rights, the court said.

The decision could lead to a bigger role for corporations, unions and other interest groups in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The case involved advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. The ads asked voters to contact the state’s two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and urge them not to filibuster President Bush’s judicial nominees.