<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Supreme Court Strikes Down Millionaire&#8217;s Amendment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thebuffalobean.com/2008/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-millionaires-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thebuffalobean.com/2008/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-millionaires-amendment/</link>
	<description>Conservative News and Commentary from Western New York</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://thebuffalobean.com/2008/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-millionaires-amendment/#comment-141</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:08:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebuffalobean.com/?p=115#comment-141</guid>
		<description>I agree. Limits on contributions is, in my opinion, the stifling of free speech.  It's too bad that those limits were given the green light by the Supreme Court already, because those limits only resulted in the big rise of 527s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. Limits on contributions is, in my opinion, the stifling of free speech.  It&#8217;s too bad that those limits were given the green light by the Supreme Court already, because those limits only resulted in the big rise of 527s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Leffler</title>
		<link>http://thebuffalobean.com/2008/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-millionaires-amendment/#comment-140</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Leffler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebuffalobean.com/?p=115#comment-140</guid>
		<description>The thing I don't get about this ... is why if a candidate funds his own campaign is it freedom of speech, but my freedom of speech ends at $2,300? I agree with the ruling that candidates should be able to spend as much of their own money as they want ... but if money is speech, we're being stifled, aren't we?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The thing I don&#8217;t get about this &#8230; is why if a candidate funds his own campaign is it freedom of speech, but my freedom of speech ends at $2,300? I agree with the ruling that candidates should be able to spend as much of their own money as they want &#8230; but if money is speech, we&#8217;re being stifled, aren&#8217;t we?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
