Well, it may depend on the exact wording. If it's what we've all assumed it is, then it's dead. Even with a 6-3 conservative majority, there's no way that will fly. Some of those conservatives have principles, and even the rest can think, and can look ahead to the day when the Democrats run Florida.

But some people are claiming that the bill isn't the way we've been taking it. Some claim that it's like this: If you're a blogger, and political party X is paying you to blog, and you're covering Florida politics, then you have to disclose the source of your funding. If it's that, and it's just that, it likely will pass SC review. It would be just like the radio ads saying "this message paid for by the committee to re-elect Senator Blow." Either that's never been tested at the SC, or it passed. And I personally don't have a problem with a paid-for blog being given the same treatment.

So: Which is it? It's going to depend on the exact wording, because those two versions of the bill are not very many words apart.