I believe that the original Internet exclusion was proper, and it is too bad that we had to go through all this. Having said that, what 1606 advocates may find is that they are in the tricky position of asserting dissatisfaction with a decent rule. They will have to make the case that paid Internet advertising is not “general public political advertising” and I think they will be vulnerable to the accusation that their “true” agenda - “allowing soft money into the system” blah blah blah, could be the only logical reason for their dissatisfaction.
I’m not saying that this accusation is fair or accurate, but it seems to me that’s how the argument unfolds in the face of today’s vote, and it puts the 1606 folks in a bad spot. The “perfect” can be the enemy of the “good” - and not just when it is the CDT doing the pushing. Maybe I am wrong and you should feel free to comment if I’m neglecting an important angle.
This is right I think, and by being on the trickier-to-defend side of this debate could end up leading the debate somewhere we don't want it to go...