Redstate

By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

While the FEC hearings this week covered a lot of ground - there are some questions remaining. Since I have a feeling that some of the reformers read RedState (if only to correct me) - I'll just post them here and let them have at it.

• How does one value a link? Larry Noble claimed that the FEC only applies a dollar figure to something that has "clear market value." Well, except that isn't entirely true. When a corporation spends $10 to help raise money for a candidate - the FEC values that contribution equal to the funds raised. So - if a link has any value at all - lets say that a corporation endorses a candidate (which they are allowed to do) and spends .15 to put a link to that candidate's website on the company homepage - how would they determine the value of that expenditure? (keep in mind that printing an endorsement on a single sheet of paper constitutes an expenditure) Because if you can't value it at .15 - you have to come up with SOME other amount.
  
• On the question of incorporated bloggers - the reformers put forth that they should be treated as individuals. Does that mean they concede that bloggers who form an LLC are ipso facto only doing so for liability purposes? What if they receive revenue through that LLC? What if they receive money from consulting? Does "blogging" have to be the only activity? What about a Sub-S corporation?
  
• When asked a question by Vice Chairman Toner, Trevor Potter added another condition to granting protections for incorporated bloggers - that they be "non profit." Huh, say again?
  
• Back in March, Trevor Potter insisted this rulemaking was only going to be about paid ads, and therefore wouldn't affect bloggers. (blogads, anyone?) But in yesterday's hearing, when asked by Commissioner Smith if he would promise not to sue if the FEC passed a rule regulating only paid ads. No such promise from Mr. Potter. Why not? Can't we just stop with the suing to get your way? Why not go back to Congress to fix what you don't like?
  
• Speaking of Mr. Potter - why no apology to Brad Smith? After being asked why he accused Smith of spreading misinformation, he denied ever having done so. Of course, Potter wrote back in March - "Commissioner Smith's interview does a good job at providing misinformation on the subject of the Internet and the FEC, as it was obviously intended to."