My understanding was that the NRA would not be able to have paid adds on the air 60 days before the election.  If that is true, what is the difference between them and a 527 group like the Swift Boat Vets, or Moveon.org?

If they are a 527, has anyone seen an anit-skerry add from them?  I would hope that the NRA could come up with something similar to the Swifties adds.

No the NRA is not a 527.

The NRA takes soft money contributions. Soft money contributions come from sources like other groups, corporations, or unions.

Under the new campaign finance reform law only 527s that take hard money individual contributions are excluded from the 60 day requirement.

527’s that take soft money are supposed to meet the campaign finance reform restrictions... In theory but in practice MoveOn.org and the like just started sister 527’s funneled individual contributions into the new sister 527 and used them to make candidate specific and negative ads and played both sides of the law.

So in theory 527s that take only hard money contributions or in other words contributions from individuals do not have to follow the restrictions of the new campaign finance reform law.

The NRA has its own news publications on print and radio...

techincally they are part of the news media...

The NRA itself can't do any politics. However, the NRA-ILA can. That organization, which is separate from the NRA, might be a 527.

screw the campaign finance reform bill.  I hope they go ahead and publish and say whatever they want.  this is America.

The NRA is not a 527, but it has purchased media outlets in hope of being allowed to engage in public speech during a political season.

As written the McCain/Feingold/Bush law allows media outlets to engage in free speech on political issues. That is not to say that the federal supreme court will rule that way after this election.

As an aside, I am so bitter because the Constitution is clear, absolutely clear, on the point of political free speech being a right. The nine asses in washington ruled otherwise.
If they can't even rule correctly on the most basic right, why would we ever think that they would rule correctly on the second?