[snsr]

Money is not speech, despite the Citizens United ruling.

[twoodfin]

So Congress could set limits on how much money the New York Times could spend to cover federal elections?

[lhc-]

News coverage of federal elections is vastly different than candidate advocacy.

[gfrdgre4]

LOL what? The New York Times has endorsed a Democratic president for the last 50 years or something.

[uptown]

Agreed. But news agencies seem to cross that divide when they feel the need to endorse political candidates.

[twoodfin]

It doesn't matter how different it is: If money is not speech, why couldn't Congress prevent the Times from spending money to write and print articles about candidates?

[seanflyon]

Is it? I think instead of funding a superPAC I'll start a news organization to cover the election as I see fit.