From the FEC hearing
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I attended the FEC hearing to release the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking governing Internet activity this morning. I have much to say about that hearing, but more important - the draft rule released today. I regret that I've been unable to post anything substantive as yet - and I'll have to wait another hour to do so.
But - I will say this - don't believe the hype, and don't believe Ellen Weintraub when she repeats her mantra of "Bloggers, Chill Out!" This draft rule, (yes, it's a draft that will change) creates an unacceptable regulatory minefield for bloggers.
Consider this - the FEC raises two significant possible "havens" for political bloggers - the "volunteer" exception and the "media" exception. The volunteer exception is preferable, because it's a sort of shall-issue exception. If you're an individual, and you're "uncompensated" - you're pretty much free to go (except..the FEC also considers an individual to only be allowed to spend a "nominal fee" in the course of providing services to a candidate or committee. Do you think the FEC realizes that the hosting tab for a moderately poplular weblog can reasonably cost $1,000 a year?) do what you want.
On the other hand - if you're a group, an incorporated blog, or you get compensated - no exception for you. (more on that in a bit)
On the other hand - the media exception will pretty much be extended on a case-by-case basis. Who decides? Why, the government of course. Welcome to regulatory compliance hell. Even better - it heavily resembles a licensing regulatory scheme, since presumably you have to submit to the FEC to get the exception before you do or say anything, lest you violate the law.
Again, more on all of this in a little while - and let me say that clearly the FEC is listening, as they've addressed every point in the letter from the Online Coalition. They've just managed to do so in a way that might create just as many problems as they intend to solve.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | RedState Release: the FEC's draft rule on internet activity — Comments (2) »
From the FEC hearing 4 Comments (0 topical, 4 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm glad somebody else understands that the real problem here isn't the FEC but the BCRA itself. I'm disappointed that too many bloggers seem to be focused on protecting their own rights to free speech without really fighting for the rights of those who communicate through radio, TV, or print media. The BCRA is about the worst violation of the First Amendment as I've ever seen. It should be repealed immediately. And we bloggers should not be fighting this battle with the FEC. We should be calling on that wonderful hero John McCain and all members of Congress to repeal the BCRA now.
I'm sorry, but I don't have anything insightful to say. Except to say that this proposed rule is total crap, and we need the Reid's bill more than ever. (My actual preference would be to eliminate McCain-Feingold, but I don't see it as a political reality.)
Is there or is there not an Equal Protection argument to be made against these rules? By giving preferential treatment to people because of the way they are transmitting their ideas and opinions thru established press, aren't we effectively making them more equal than the rest of us?
At the time of the First Amendment, the press was any crackpot with a printing press. Why can't the press today be any crackpot with a modem?
Do you know how many pages American citizens had to read to understand how they could participate in 'Federal' Elections prior to 1975? The answer is zero. In 2005 you can down load a 16 page Citizen's guide from the Federal Election Commission website to help you learn about reporting requirements and intervals, independent vs. in-kind donations, soft vs. hard money etc. Are you encouraged to participate yet?
The fight to maintain our rights to participate in democracy by freely speaking, printing and assembling with others who share our views is not one the baby boomer generation could have conceived of in our youth. It is not a fight members of a free society should have to fight. It is a fight necessitated by self serving politicians, activist judges with agendas, attorneys specializing in campaign law and bureaucrats with a stake in the expansion of their fiefdoms.
The shortest definition of law is fixed. The Constitution is not a living document and as Judge Scalia recently pointed out, it says some things and doesn't say others. If you can change the definition of words at whim how could law be codified? The 1st Amendment denies Congress the authority to write laws abridging speech, press and assembly and it means exactly what it says.
The Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act are unconstitutional laws that abridge all three prohibitions, usurp the rightful authority of the individual States to regulate elections, favor the incumbent politicians over challengers, exempt editorials by the corporate press but regulate pamphleteers walking handbills door to door, expect journalists to interview candidates prior to publishing but claim independent grassroots organizations that do likewise have committed felony coordination (assembly). Campaign laws also require disclaimers and disclosure of who paid for what. On the face this would seem in the public interest and I have no objection personally. Nonetheless, one must wonder whether the Revolutionary war would have succeeded without the American mischief of anonymous speech.
And all this censorship is based on the Supreme Court's decision that the people need to have faith in their elected officials and thus laws must be written to avoid the appearance of impropriety! In my humble opinion the failure to amend the Constitution to modify the 1st and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights and get a majority of the States to agree is a major impropriety that really strains my faith in my elected and appointed federal employees!
I will be posting hyperlinks to facilitate writing protests to Congressmen and Senators on my website, http://amendment10.tripod.com, later today. I encourage all who value 1st Amendment rights to keep fighting this fight until we win!