Whoa! I'd be scared to go anywhere near that thing. I don't think it's online anymore, but The Onion had a great op-ed a couple of years ago, "Just Wait 'Til I Get These Fucking Rubber Bands Off" by Freddie the Lobster.

That one was good, but it was no "I'm Tired Of Looking At These Same Four Uterine Walls."

Uh, I think your post-title is wrong. It's supposed to be "I double-LOBSTER Dare the FEC..."

Heh. Indeed, I should've said, "I double-LOBSTER" dare you to change the post title. :)

Oh, and yeah. I says, bring it on! The Medium Lobster transcends time and space, so what can they possibly do?

Link via Josh Marshall.

Will Wilkinson called this one right away: Smith is no dummy and was probably deliberately baiting the bloggers. I don't really like Billy Beck, but I think he had it exactly right in the comments at Q & O: "This is going to be no sweat at all. Let ’em try it. They’ll be ass-deep in criminals so fast that they won’t know whether to shit or place a bet.I, for one, hope they push the thing as hard as they can. We will not have seen the rotten bastards looking so foolish in one big worthless lump in all our lives, and the country can use the illustration. Bring it on."

However, Iron Mouth's reflexive "Don't do it, it's what the right-wingers want!" reaction strikes me as being beside the point. Sure it's no secret that Smith hates McCain-Feingold, but the fact remains that this is a logical implication of the bill. I don't understand why anyone on either side of the aisle would support it anyway, since both parties did well enough at finding ways around it (527s, etc) in the last election. It serves no purpose and is wide open as an excuse for abusive restrictions on free speech.

... why do Republicans generally oppose it while Dems generally support it?

My own support for it is based on my respect for Norman Ornstein and having him explain the thing to me in person. I'm interested in other ideas like "patriot dollars," but I really think that it's no coincidence that this was a competitive and vigorous election.

But how can you simultaneously argue that (a) there are so many ways around it, and (b) "it is wide open as an excuse for abusive restrictions on free speech?"

There are ways around it if you have money and means. It's the people who don't that are more likely to get screwed.

Actually I should be clearer: I'm against this precisely because it's a restriction of free speech. I don't believe that's worth whatever percieved gains there may be from it. But my point is that even if you don't agree with that, it still fails on its own terms.