<?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: Money Talks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://theideacooperative.com/2010/01/money-talk/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://theideacooperative.com/2010/01/money-talk/</link>
	<description>a brand strategy &#38; creative communications company</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:17:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: The Pre-Hype Hype</title>
		<link>http://theideacooperative.com/2010/01/money-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>The Pre-Hype Hype</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theideacooperative.com/?p=548#comment-8</guid>
		<description>[...] interesting that within a few weeks of the airwaves being opened up to unregulated corporate expenditures on political advertising we’re about to get a prime time example of what happens when opinions are pitched to us like [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] interesting that within a few weeks of the airwaves being opened up to unregulated corporate expenditures on political advertising we’re about to get a prime time example of what happens when opinions are pitched to us like [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TomK</title>
		<link>http://theideacooperative.com/2010/01/money-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-7</link>
		<dc:creator>TomK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theideacooperative.com/?p=548#comment-7</guid>
		<description>Prescient Humor:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prescient Humor:<br />
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/supreme_court_allows</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TomK</title>
		<link>http://theideacooperative.com/2010/01/money-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>TomK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theideacooperative.com/?p=548#comment-6</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/q-2.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andrew Sullivan&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/the-first-appearance-of-the-word-blog-in-a-supreme-court-opinion/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;and others&lt;/a&gt;, noted this was the first time the Supreme Court used the term &quot;blog&quot; in an opinion. In fact, YouTube got it&#039;s first supreme judicial mention, too.
&quot;Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech,&quot; - Justice Anthony Kennedy, marking the first time &quot;blog&quot; has been used in a Supreme Court opinion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/q-2.html" rel="nofollow">Andrew Sullivan</a>, <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/the-first-appearance-of-the-word-blog-in-a-supreme-court-opinion/" rel="nofollow">and others</a>, noted this was the first time the Supreme Court used the term "blog" in an opinion. In fact, YouTube got it's first supreme judicial mention, too.<br />
"Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message. Soon, however, it may be that Internet sources, such as blogs and social networking Web sites, will provide citizens with significant information about political candidates and issues. Yet, §441b would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds. The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech," - Justice Anthony Kennedy, marking the first time "blog" has been used in a Supreme Court opinion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

