FEC regulating Blogging?
By krempasky Posted in User Blogs — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The FEC hates freedom. How many times has that passed my lips? Too many to count.
CNET has just published an interview with FEC commissioner Bradley Smith regarding earlier rumors that the FEC would soon determine whether blogging and other Internet activity should be regulated (read: stamped out).
And the outlook? Not good at all.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.
A little background: back in 2002, while the FEC was developing rules and regulations to go along with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law, the Commission voted 4-2 to exempt Internet activity from the process.
In 2004, however, a US District Judge (I was, of course, shocked and stunned to learn that she's a Clinton appointee) overturned that ruling, claiming that allowing this little corner of freedom undermined the entire spirit of the BCRA. And unfortunately, the FEC could not muster four votes to set aside the Judge's decision.
That's three Democrats, folks. Three Democrats that don't believe that the Internet should remain free, and that citizens have the right to participate in the political process without lawyers and accountants.
Make no mistake - Democrats and Republicans together got us into this mess, including President Bush - who in the most glaring example of political cowardice of his administration signed McCain-Feingold.
But now that it's becoming clear what sort of disaster we're heading for as this law evolves and expands - the Democrats own this one. The Republican members of the FEC have seen the edge of the cliff and are trying to back away, only to be frustrated by the three Democratic appointees on the Commission. So I hope that our friends on the left side of the blogosphere will join us in urging those Democrats to stop this before it's too late.
Consider it the first opportunity for the left-of-center bloggers to have their very own Sister Souljah moment.
At the same time, let's just hope that Messrs. McCain and Feingold and all of their fans don't get another chance to tighten their grip on incumbency while keeping us riffraff out in the street and out of power.
This is very disturbing. I would expect this form China, but not the United States. I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't these sort of restrictions be met with a Constitutional challenge? Isn't this a restriction of freedom of speech? The MSM may not care, as they seem to be protected, but this trouncing of the blogosphere would be an incredible restriction of freedoms.
Chortle. Court allowing free speech in politics. Guffaw.
establish the principle, since ratified by the SCOTUS, that the government may regulate the timing and content of political expression, as well as the amount of any contributions made to a campaign? Well, then, why would it not be possible to stretch that last few millimeters toward the notion that political speech of any kind, inasmuch as it seeks to influence the process, and, insofar as discussion of any issue might be thought to be advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates pursuant to their positions on the issues, is simply a campaign contribution by intent or analogy, and is, therefore, subject to regulation?
McCain-Feingold: bringing America to the bright, shining future of state media.
Has anyone forgotten the Federalist Papers... Under the principles in place today they would be impermissible. Can you believe those evil guys wrote using pen names!!
The exemption for the press in McCain-Feingold does not extend to the Internet. However I argue that in light of Leahy's bill, they just might have to include bloggers in that exemption since Leahy's bill specifically recognizes Bloggers as representatives of the new media and I believe has wide bipartisan support.
But we were our own country, and if things keep going so poorly in Washington, it may not be a bad idea if we are independent again.
This prospect is very disturbing indeed. What a blatant affront to free speech it would be for the FEC to regulate and fine bloggers! That's just unacceptable. The obvious comparison of this to tyrannical control of free speech is... well, obvious...and correct.
What's next, are they going to regulate campaign volunteers because their personal time is considered a contribution that the government should control?
Viva la Pajama Revolucion!
I think we should examine a coordinated letter writing/email/phone call campaign with other blogs to members of Congress. Their staffs hate nothing more than being inundated with correspondence on an issue like this. It may force them to look at it.
as to ignore us, then we ought to "crash the system" during the next election cycle: generate so many links to campaign sites and literature that it will be impossible to enforce the law in any but a token number of cases.
Just about blogs? Aren't other forms of speech important too?
I've always thought, given the most famous use of that slogan (in these States, anyway), that that motto might need to be revised.
Been there. Done that. Lost.
Now you understand why the court case last year was such a big deal, and why the right side of the blogosphere was making such a fuss about it.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!! (Virginia still has a better motto than Texas)