Redstate

That I watched you today on C-Span, Congressman, and I was really proud of your defense of this bill, and I was really upset by Barney Frank's trashing of the initiative.  I had to close down my monitoring of the stream before the vote, so I didn't know the final tally until just now (although I did try to find it through Thomas) but this is, nevertheless, a very solid showing.  

Those among us who genuinely care about this legislation and the freedom of political expression on the Internet -- regardless of political party -- were watching today, and all that I can say is that some members of our most important national Representative body did a much, much better job trying to defend our freedoms than others.  I really want to thank you -- many of us have worked hard to get things to this point, and I hope we'll all continue to work hard, move this initiative forward.  Just give us the word.

The roll call for this vote is here and the bill is here.

What exactly is the next step?  And what can us ordinary folk do to help?

We'll bring it under the regular rules of the House. we've got a majority on the record in support - this is a huge deal. A similar bill in 2002 failed - badly.

Rep. DeLay (yeah, him) offered an amendment to BCRA which stated that "none of the limitations, prohibitions or reporting requirements of this act [other than the solicitation or receipt of contributions] shall apply to any activity carried out through the use of the Internet."

It failed 160-268.

what was barney franks argument against the Bill?

I was somewhat shocked to learn that Nebraska's 3rd District Representative Osborne, who is planning a run for Governor of our state, stood with Pelosi, Rangel, Jackson-Lee and all the other ilk in opposing the bill. It's quite an honor for a rural red-state football coach to join the "We speak for the common man, so he doesn't have to" crowd.

For those of you who are interested in the history of political speech and discussion, especially discussion 'by the common man", here's a perspective that is relevent to the battle. In 1644, John Milton (of Paradise Lost fame) wrote a critical essay called "Areopagitica" in response to the King of England's effort to shut down printing presses run by those who were critical of his administration. Most who obtain journalism degrees are forced to read the dry but important essay (though apparently most forget it the very second they gain employment with the MSM).

The King's argument went like this:

1. There is a chance someone could print something that would be false (and subsequently defamatory).
   
   
2. That would be bad and hurt innocent people (c'est moi, as Ayn Rand would say).
   
   
3. I therefore must license who can print, so that they will have an "incentive" to only print the truth and lose their license if they print falsehood.

Notably, the King was who determined what was truth and false, so the act had both the effect of curtailing any criticism by those authorized to print, and eliminating those who printed without authorization.

Today's Congressional Star Chamber parallels the King's logic:

1. There is a chance a blogger or other Internet common person could communicate something online that could be loosely construed as political support, could be loosely construed as a campaign contribution, and could be done without following all the fancy new rules ala Campaign Finance Reform.
   
   
2. This would be bad because it could hurt the people (c'est moi).
   
   
3. Therefore we have to curtail political speech online and limit it to only the authorized parties that are mainstream media entities that the King/Congress authorizes to speak politically.

There are remarkable parallels, and I'd suggest that it is politically unwise (especially for alleged conservative Republicans) to protect the media elite at the expense of the common man. We're going to work hard to let Nebraskans know Osborne is not interested in their participation (he's always been a media darling due to his coaching the Cornhuskers to national championships and apparently misses his prominance). It's time to put the pressure on these irresponsible conservatives-in-name.

scoove

p.s. For more info on Areopagitica, see here: http://www.stlawrenceinstitute.org/vol14mit.html

It looks like you are back on the House floor (10:25 PM EST) on another important issue -- how to control federal spending.  Good luck!

argument wasn't really against the bill, IIRC, but he whined about it being "hypocritical" to bring a vote on a free speech issue under rules that limited the amount of time each side got to speak.  That's what I heard, but I didn't see it all and I may have missed something.

First, I'm very happy to see this was a bipartisan majority.  But in case one wants to see what the breakdown was, here it is:

PARTY------     YES     NO_             NV

Republican_    179    38_         13

Democratic_    46_    143         13

Independent    0__     1_          

TOTALS___    225    182         26

So why do 38 Rs and 143 Ds think the internet shouldn't be a bastion of free speech?  Why do they think anywhere in America shouldn't be a bastion of free speech?

Very good point and analogy.