For the record: too late for appeal
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Much attention was paid earlier this week to the fact that the FEC was unable (thanks to the 3 Democrats on the panel) to muster four votes to appeal a September court decision on regulating the Internet.
I wrote earlier that we needed to pressure the FEC to change course and appeal the decision, if only to buy some time to get pieces in place.
Unfortunately, not so - I was just told that the opportunity to appeal that decision has passed and no longer a possibility. So, it's on to the rulemaking.
Basically, within approximately a month, the FEC will release a draft of a proposed set of rules dealing with internet activity which will invite public comment and debate. We'll keep you updated. Also, I spent a good amount of time on the phone this afternoon with Commissioner Bradley Smith. He was gracious with his time and worked to help me understand the very real issues involved. I'll try to digest it all and post more about it over the weekend.
In the meantime, keep this in mind - if we end up with a scenario in which bloggers that republish campaign materials (blockquote anyone?) are then subject JUST to fill out FEC reports because of that activity - it's a catastrophe, plain and simple.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6)
For the record: too late for appeal 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
So do you feel the same way about other forms of speech besides online? I don't get what's so special about internet speech except that we're all biased because we use it.
It's all wrong, unconstitutional, and poisonous to democracy.
in your sentence
It's all wrong, unconstitutional, and poisonous to democracy?
Specifically McCain-Feingold/BCRA.
More broadly limiting individual political speech in general. But I'm specifically concerned with the BCRA right now.
and I'll add I think ALL so-called campaign finance "regulation" beyond total disclosure and transparency is a Free Speech violation. My dime, my property in service of MY speech.
Period.
I would feel a lot safer about the state of our democracy if that (no limits, just full, fast disclosure) were the law. I would even stop arguing about the point.
However...
Why is it constitutional to require individuals to "register" to speak? Put another way, why is it constitutional to punish speach by non-registered participants, not for the specific content of their speech, but for simply (1) speaking (2) to influence the election of a candidate and (3) failing to properly "register?"
At the very least it makes me very nervous that my government tracks who I support and who I oppose. It raises the same basic repulsion under First Amendment standards that registration of firearms causes as a threat to the Second Amendment.
The FEC (along with most of the establishment) still doesn't understand the internet. The blogosphere outcry of the last few days is a fart in a gale compared to the sh-tstorm to come if they (the FEC) persist in this lunacy.
The United States Congress, the President of the United States, the Supreme Court, a decent percentage of the public, and the main stream media do not understand free speech.
The FEC tried to do the right thing in regard to the internet at least, and the Democratic half decided not to appeal what I perceive, so far, a correct interpretation of McCain-Feingold by a Federal District Judge.
I like the frustration, but if the FEC is the battleground free speech loses. The war should be at shaping public perceptions and pressuring legislatures and the executive to do the right thing in 1) passing legislation and 2) appointing justices that understand the Constitution.
This makes my brain hurt.
I have been monitoring the developments on this story (yes, monitoring naysayers) and think we can see where the FEC commissioners are lining up ...Looks to me that it is the GOP Commissioners who are eager to regulate Internet political activity.
Totally ignoring that it was the Dems who blocked the appeal of the judge's ruling.
[insert appropriate swearing here]
Krempasky is on there slugging away. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment.
let the FEC come after me if I quote from ANY source on my own blog.
I find it tantamount to having to "fill out FEC reports" because I put a campaign sign on my lawn.
What is it about "shall make NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech" that these numbnutz don't understand?