<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provisions of McCain-Feingold</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provisions-of-mccain-feingold/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provisions-of-mccain-feingold/</link>
	<description>Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 18:49:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Below The Beltway &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A Mixed Day for Liberty At The Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provisions-of-mccain-feingold/#comment-30687</link>
		<dc:creator>Below The Beltway &#187; Blog Archive &#187; A Mixed Day for Liberty At The Supreme Court</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:33:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provisions-of-mccain-feingold/#comment-30687</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life, the Court declared unconstitutional those provisions of the McCain-Feingold law that restrict advertising that specifically mentions a ca...Â  On the whole, this was a good decision. Yes, it would have been nice to see the Court reverse [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life, the Court declared unconstitutional those provisions of the McCain-Feingold law that restrict advertising that specifically mentions a ca&#8230;Â  On the whole, this was a good decision. Yes, it would have been nice to see the Court reverse [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
