Show me anywhere in the constitution of its amendments that gives a right to broadcast your speech. Seriously, cause there are plenty of things I'd love to be able to force the networks to broadcast...

Me too here be a few, i'll go with daily tallies;

babies murderd by abortion

deaths buy overdose

poeple murdered buy criminals

criminals caught selling drugs

how many times a day on tv an uncertain theroy is preposessed as fact

new taxes suggested

how many times a day an uncertian theroy is preposessed as fact in print

thats just a few I could go all day but I won't.

oh mabee just one more, how many of this was done by liberals Vs. normal people.

The ballot box, not the courts, is the remedy in these cases.

You may be right, my point is that the law is not unconstitutional. It may be a bad idea.

Political speech is much more highly protected than commercial speech. Government can't regulate the content of your political speech.

The speech part you are correct about. The broadgast part you are wrong on.

Show me anywhere in the constitution of its amendments that gives a right to broadcast your speech. Seriously, cause there are plenty of things I'd love to be able to force the networks to broadcast...

The ballot box, not the courts, is the remedy in these cases.

As for using the courts to sue someone for slander, that's appropriate, I think. If someone was spreading lies about me during a campaign, and I hought they were egregious enough, I might use the courts. Even if there was no chance of me winning, I would do it to show that I was not easy to push around, and that it would cost the other politician a bit of money to lie about me.

There is nothing in the first amendment that gives a right to advertise. [...] the government is free to police what I say on the air (for vulgarity or accuracy, as examples).

Political speech is much more highly protected than commercial speech. Government can't regulate the content of your political speech.

Quite right.

No actually blatantly wrong. There is nothing in the first amendment that gives a right to advertise. Air time is in no way the same as free speech. I have a right to say what I want, I do not have a right to have those things broadcast. I may be able to buy air time but I have no right to it, and the government is free to police what I say on the air (for vulgarity or accuracy, as examples).

Now you can argue that the law is poorly thought out or hard to enforce or whatever, but if you argue it is unconstitutional you're full of it.

Agreed. The flaw in the law, as I see it, is it left the decision of finding fact with a dept of the executive branch rather than the courts, thus encouraging govt censorship. If the law had established criminal penalties to be decided by a court, I believe the law would stand.

Michael is correct in his assertion that one can sue for libel. However, this is a civil action, not a criminal one.