On Federal candidates' election ads (within the privileged FCC period about thirty days before an election) what are the restrictions on ad content? WLS radio banned some roughly 2006 radio spots wherein I said mayor Daley shouldn't have bulldozed Meigs field in Lake Michigan as it could serve as a forward tactical airbase to attack the invading alien hordes. Seven of my ten spots were rejected when I submitted them two days before the election over a weekend so thee was no time for a proper response. The excuse was they were racist and offensive. Actually they just offended the social relationships of the various broadcasters' agents here and their access to "news".
(Basically the news business is all butt kissing and no real old time opposition or noble efforts to inform, preserve truth and freedom, etc. Gotta keep up good appearances with City Hall.)
The ad spots merely pointed out Chicago Negroes, Puerto Ricans, etc, rioted and got rewarded while Polacks, who never rioted, had to flee from Puerto Rricans and illegal aliens. WLS has since degenerated and has a certain amount of crude subjects discussed by various hosts so their "offensive" argument is specious.
I am now a write-in candidate for Illinois' 2d Cong. Dist. in it's Chicago and Cook county divisions only and not the rural and farm areas. Due to a serious speech problem arising from an auto accident
I am unable to use a normal speaking voice and will likely hire someone to read a script. If I can't arrange that quickly I may drop the matter and concentrate on something else.
However if I do go forward I will likely attack every politically correct thing on the airwaves. I will assail faggotry and quote lots of Leviticus and other historical commentaries relating to that behavior. Worst of all I will call for all fruits to give uo their fruitery, to pray and fast, and to reform their lives by returning or coming to Christ. This alone will cause horrendous shrieks of outrage and get ad spots banned more than any other factor. Ditto for behavior such as shack jobs which merely produce mentally and emotionally deranged young women as indicated by studies among university student bodies or other research.
I would call Vatican II a disaster in which elements in the church attacked the discipline, teachings, and liturgy of the church, to their own destruction and the abandonment of the faith by millions of Catholics whose beliefs were made a mockery with clown masses and the elimination of traditional discipline such as meatles Fridays. The vernacular mass is a disaster as is communion in the hand which for Catholics is borderline and frequently, real sacrilege.
I would oppose what I would call race-mxing and meat packing programs and legislation whose purpose is to destroy all privacy, choice, free association, and to reduce multiple populations to social and legislative amoeba being experimented on by assorted political experimenters. Anyway you get the gist of this all of which would cause social and political outrage 'mongst the staff at WLS and elsewhere. They would prefer to interview fags, strippers, gang bangers, and whomever else. Please advise on this particular aspect.
Strictly speaking, a formal campaign cannot be defended by the candidate unless he is a lawyer as the candidate is a second party to a two party suit and a pro se candidate can't function for his campaign. Does this apply to write-in campaigns at the Federal level? Does it apply to state or lower level elections in Illinois?
Has anyone ever tied an attack upon a campaign's status to an allegation of an attack intended primarily upon the candidate as a person rather than as a candidate? What are the separating lines between candidate status and the man himself?