So, does this ban all news related to politicians?

Newspapers and television programs sell time and space via advertisements, and there is more in the world than could conceivably fit.

Therefore, every inclusion is an editorial decision. Any positive or negative opinion, any review of a biography or book about a politician, every interview is now a contribution in kind- after all, the time and space have value, which are included in this law as "anything of value".

Basically, this is literally what the Citizens United decision boiled down to- a blatant infringement on free speech. People HATE citizens United because it lets companies donate money, but this is the flip side to the equation.

▲

hlieberman 11 hours ago | parent [-]

"(b) The term does not include the distribution of bona fide news, commentary, or editorial content unless the publishing entity is owned or controlled by a political party, a political committee, or a candidate".

	▲	dcrazy 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What’s “bona fide news?” Does it include the World Socialist Web Site? MS NOW? Newsmax? Russia Today? Generally it’s not advisable for the government to have the power to ban political communication and decide on a case-by-case basis what communication falls into the banned classes.
	▲	twoodfin 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Just like it says in the First Amendment! Congress shall make no law except… If this thing passes it’s a dead letter to at least the current SCOTUS.