Full Version: The Coming Crack Down on Blogging?
There was a very interesting interview posted on CNET with Bradley Smith who sits on the Federal Election Commission - here.
The whole interview is interesting and the core matter they are debating is whether links and coverage by political bloggers and online pundits should be counted as a campaign contribution. The FEC is composed of 6 members - 3 democrats, 3 republicans.
Questions for debate:
1. Should political bloggers and online pundits be regulated by the FEC and bound by campaign finance laws or should the status quo remain?
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation, equivalent to telling someone they can't wear a political button or talk up their favorite candidate at a cocktail party?
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
QUOTE
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.
Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.
In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines" the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.
In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines" the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
The whole interview is interesting and the core matter they are debating is whether links and coverage by political bloggers and online pundits should be counted as a campaign contribution. The FEC is composed of 6 members - 3 democrats, 3 republicans.
Questions for debate:
1. Should political bloggers and online pundits be regulated by the FEC and bound by campaign finance laws or should the status quo remain?
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation, equivalent to telling someone they can't wear a political button or talk up their favorite candidate at a cocktail party?
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
1. Should political bloggers and online pundits be regulated by the FEC and bound by campaign finance laws or should the status quo remain?
This is a easy one for me, the answer is no as well as no to the first amendment violating campaign finance laws in question.
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation, equivalent to telling someone they can't wear a political button or talk up their favorite candidate at a cocktail party?
Absolutely, just as the campaign "finance" reforms are violations of the first Amendment IMHO.
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
It could, but I do not think it will happen. How is this different then me putting up a Bash Bush, or Kreme Kerry (or in my case both
) sign in my front yard. If Bloggers are violating campaign regulations they are signs such as this doing the same.If I put a banner on my house that says "Bush wants to give the Country to Illegal Aliens" is that a violation of these "reforms" if I keep it up 30 days before the campaign? Is that considered an Issue Advocacy Advertizement?
1. Should political bloggers and online pundits be regulated by the FEC and bound by campaign finance laws or should the status quo remain?
Good Question. Only if they are connected to PACs or Campaigns. Otherwise, the FEC has no business monitoring anyone's speech.
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation, equivalent to telling someone they can't wear a political button or talk up their favorite candidate at a cocktail party?
Yes. With the exceptions listed above.
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
If so, It will ignite an incredible opposition of outrage. The internet is the last bastion of FREE PRESS. If they attempt to regulate it, I would predict an enormous outrage.
Good Question. Only if they are connected to PACs or Campaigns. Otherwise, the FEC has no business monitoring anyone's speech.
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation, equivalent to telling someone they can't wear a political button or talk up their favorite candidate at a cocktail party?
Yes. With the exceptions listed above.
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
If so, It will ignite an incredible opposition of outrage. The internet is the last bastion of FREE PRESS. If they attempt to regulate it, I would predict an enormous outrage.
1. Should political bloggers and online pundits be regulated by the FEC and bound by campaign finance laws or should the status quo remain?
What a curious question.
The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech." One if its simplest and most direct commands. A few years ago, Congress made a law doing exactly that. Even more astonishingly, the President signed it - his most egregious single act as President. And shockingly, five Supreme Court justices (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor, Souter) approved it, despite the clear language of the Constitution. (BTW, check out what some of the other justices thought of it: go to http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf and scroll down to page 170. Then have a look at page 188. Also pages 215 and 283.)
Now you're asking if it should also cover bloggers.
May I point out a parallel (hypothetical) situation, to illustrate how absurd the entire situation is, and how obvious the answer?
Another part of the Constitution says (this is not the hypothetical part): "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist within the United States." Now suppose Congress were to pass a law tomorrow (this is the hypothetical part), saying that black people must be put in chains against their will and forced to work on farms picking cotton, for room and board only. And President Byrd were to sign it. And five Supreme Court justices (Duke, Hollings, Douglas, Davis, and Stalin) approved it.
And some time later, a question were to appear on this board asking, "Should this law also be extended to require enslavement of Americans of Hispanic descent?"
I'll leave the answer as an exercise for the class.
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation?
No, it would be another First Amendment violation. And not potentially.
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
I think you've already answered that, by asking the first of these three questions.
What a curious question.
The Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech." One if its simplest and most direct commands. A few years ago, Congress made a law doing exactly that. Even more astonishingly, the President signed it - his most egregious single act as President. And shockingly, five Supreme Court justices (Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor, Souter) approved it, despite the clear language of the Constitution. (BTW, check out what some of the other justices thought of it: go to http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1674.pdf and scroll down to page 170. Then have a look at page 188. Also pages 215 and 283.)
Now you're asking if it should also cover bloggers.
May I point out a parallel (hypothetical) situation, to illustrate how absurd the entire situation is, and how obvious the answer?
Another part of the Constitution says (this is not the hypothetical part): "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist within the United States." Now suppose Congress were to pass a law tomorrow (this is the hypothetical part), saying that black people must be put in chains against their will and forced to work on farms picking cotton, for room and board only. And President Byrd were to sign it. And five Supreme Court justices (Duke, Hollings, Douglas, Davis, and Stalin) approved it.
And some time later, a question were to appear on this board asking, "Should this law also be extended to require enslavement of Americans of Hispanic descent?"
I'll leave the answer as an exercise for the class.
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation?
No, it would be another First Amendment violation. And not potentially.
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
I think you've already answered that, by asking the first of these three questions.
Let them try to regulate it. They'll be slaughtered. The Geeks will always beat the Beauracrats. To even attempt this reeks of all that is wrong with all forms of government--but especially has no place in a Free Society.
Trying to restrict it at all will only show how weak and pathetic government really is. The Old Guard Media outlets learned this and I can think of few agencies more in need of learning its place than the FCC.
1. Should political bloggers and online pundits be regulated by the FEC and bound by campaign finance laws or should the status quo remain?
Absolutely NO place. Just how much are Americans so willing to give away in terms of their RIGHT to free speech? Have so many truly become such pathetic sheep that this can even be considered as something the government can Do? I don't remember giving my permission--anybody else remember THAT part--that the government exists for US and NEVER the other way around!
I would ask why so many people are happy becoming servants in their own country.
People unhappy with the influence of some of these blogs should simply learn to decode the double speak and propaganda they spew forth and expose their "Information" and views for the very naked emperors--in a very cold rooms--that they are.
Instead of being taught to submit.
Trying to restrict it at all will only show how weak and pathetic government really is. The Old Guard Media outlets learned this and I can think of few agencies more in need of learning its place than the FCC.
1. Should political bloggers and online pundits be regulated by the FEC and bound by campaign finance laws or should the status quo remain?
Absolutely NO place. Just how much are Americans so willing to give away in terms of their RIGHT to free speech? Have so many truly become such pathetic sheep that this can even be considered as something the government can Do? I don't remember giving my permission--anybody else remember THAT part--that the government exists for US and NEVER the other way around!
I would ask why so many people are happy becoming servants in their own country.
People unhappy with the influence of some of these blogs should simply learn to decode the double speak and propaganda they spew forth and expose their "Information" and views for the very naked emperors--in a very cold rooms--that they are.
Instead of being taught to submit.
1. Should political bloggers and online pundits be regulated by the FEC and bound by campaign finance laws or should the status quo remain?
Heh, no way. Why should they be bound by a law, this person is putting themselves out there to be scrutinized by the public. He should already accept that people out there will want to know anything and everything about said person and if they cant accept that stay out of the limelight.
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation, equivalent to telling someone they can't wear a political button or talk up their favorite candidate at a cocktail party?
Yes, as i said they are making themselves a public icon, anything they say can and probably will be analyzed by people from an opposing faction to look for a way to turn around what they said, bad or good, into something to help their stuff. I believe it is a first amendment violation because it actually IS a violation of it.
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
Uhhh, yes. When the government decides that it no longer wants to be made fun of it makes these asinine regulations to somehow think of stopping these guys. The government more and more seems like a little child who has no problem dishing but runs away and cries and changes the rules when it starts coming back
Heh, no way. Why should they be bound by a law, this person is putting themselves out there to be scrutinized by the public. He should already accept that people out there will want to know anything and everything about said person and if they cant accept that stay out of the limelight.
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation, equivalent to telling someone they can't wear a political button or talk up their favorite candidate at a cocktail party?
Yes, as i said they are making themselves a public icon, anything they say can and probably will be analyzed by people from an opposing faction to look for a way to turn around what they said, bad or good, into something to help their stuff. I believe it is a first amendment violation because it actually IS a violation of it.
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
Uhhh, yes. When the government decides that it no longer wants to be made fun of it makes these asinine regulations to somehow think of stopping these guys. The government more and more seems like a little child who has no problem dishing but runs away and cries and changes the rules when it starts coming back
Looks like Minority Leader Reid just introduced a bill that would exempt internet communications from FEC regulation:
He also sent this letter to the FEC Chairman:
It'll be very interesting to see how the Republicans weigh in on this (it would effect right wing bloggers too obviously). Will they shut reid down due to petty party politics, or will they do the right thing?
QUOTE
Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."
He also sent this letter to the FEC Chairman:
QUOTE
I am writing to express my serious concerns with the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) pending rulemaking concerning internet communications and your recent remarks in this regard. Today I introduced legislation to make it clear that Congress did not intend to regulate this new and growing medium in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA).
As you know, the internet has provided a new and exciting medium for political speech. It has generated a surge in grassroots involvement in our government and has proven to be a democratizing medium in our political process. Regulation of the internet at this time, with its blogs and other novel features, would blunt its tremendous potential, discourage broad political involvement in our nation and diminish our representative democracy.
One of your Democratic colleagues on the FEC recently made clear in public remarks that the regulation of blogs in particular is neither required by BCRA, nor by the litigation surrounding the FEC's implementation of that law. I urge you to work with her and your other FEC colleagues in the coming weeks to avoid silencing this new and important form of political speech.
As you know, the internet has provided a new and exciting medium for political speech. It has generated a surge in grassroots involvement in our government and has proven to be a democratizing medium in our political process. Regulation of the internet at this time, with its blogs and other novel features, would blunt its tremendous potential, discourage broad political involvement in our nation and diminish our representative democracy.
One of your Democratic colleagues on the FEC recently made clear in public remarks that the regulation of blogs in particular is neither required by BCRA, nor by the litigation surrounding the FEC's implementation of that law. I urge you to work with her and your other FEC colleagues in the coming weeks to avoid silencing this new and important form of political speech.
It'll be very interesting to see how the Republicans weigh in on this (it would effect right wing bloggers too obviously). Will they shut reid down due to petty party politics, or will they do the right thing?
1. Should political bloggers and online pundits be regulated by the FEC and bound by campaign finance laws or should the status quo remain?
Quick answer to this one which I'll expand on later. EVERYONE is bound by campaign finance laws and regulated by the FEC when it comes to campaign donations. Whether I have a blog or not, there is a limit to how much money I can donate to a candidate. It seems to me that the problem that arises in this very good question is how to evaluate blogs and online pundits from a campaign donation type of standpoint.
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation, equivalent to telling someone they can't wear a political button or talk up their favorite candidate at a cocktail party?
Potentially, yes, but then again, I thought McCain-Feingold was a first amendment violation.
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
You bet it is, and I think the debate should perhaps center around whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. In order to do this I think we have to recognize how powerful the Internet has become. Huge amounts of money were raised for campaigns in the last election cycle over the Internet. Some directly, some indirectly, and we had a big debate about that at the time. (Wish I could find it)
If on one hand we say, the Internet is completely off-limits to FEC regulation, then folks, throw any kind of campaign finance regulation out the window. Sneaky lawyers on all sides will figure out how to use the Internet to raise unlimited amounts of money to advocate their candidates and causes. How much did Soros donate? Something like $26 million to defeat Bush? (His own words). Not picking on Soros, at least here, he was just the most obvious one. Republicans raised a ton a money too. Believe me, if the Internet is immune from campaign finance laws, they will very quickly become obsolete.
Now, if on the other hand we want to keep the FEC laws somewhat intact, it seems to me that the Internet has to be addressed in some fashion. In the most draconian sense I suppose that every post I did here during the 2004 election could have been "charged" as a campaign contribution.
Maybe not a bad idea, might have received some "invites"..... In a lesser sense perhaps someone who simply participates in online debate and has a blog that very few people pay any attention to would be exempt as long as I don't attempt to raise money for a politcal cause. There's a can of worms there though as well.....
To make this up close and personal, I would ask the question, "Where does that put America's Debate?" Mike has ad banners here to political websites that advocate political causes. Some posters also put ads to political causes in their signatures. Does this get "charged" and counted by the FEC as a political contribution? If I include a link in a post to something at the RNC website, have I made a contribution to the RNC? On the surface it appears to be small potatoes to be sure, but when one considers how much money was raised in 2004 from the Internet, maybe it's not so small after all. It is entirely reasonable to believe that all sides could use the Internet as an end run around campaign finance laws. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is something to consider in this debate I think.
Quick answer to this one which I'll expand on later. EVERYONE is bound by campaign finance laws and regulated by the FEC when it comes to campaign donations. Whether I have a blog or not, there is a limit to how much money I can donate to a candidate. It seems to me that the problem that arises in this very good question is how to evaluate blogs and online pundits from a campaign donation type of standpoint.
2. Is this potentially a first amendment violation, equivalent to telling someone they can't wear a political button or talk up their favorite candidate at a cocktail party?
Potentially, yes, but then again, I thought McCain-Feingold was a first amendment violation.
3. The internet for the most part has remained largely free of any type of regulations whatsoever, could this be the first step in regulating this and other areas?
You bet it is, and I think the debate should perhaps center around whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. In order to do this I think we have to recognize how powerful the Internet has become. Huge amounts of money were raised for campaigns in the last election cycle over the Internet. Some directly, some indirectly, and we had a big debate about that at the time. (Wish I could find it)
If on one hand we say, the Internet is completely off-limits to FEC regulation, then folks, throw any kind of campaign finance regulation out the window. Sneaky lawyers on all sides will figure out how to use the Internet to raise unlimited amounts of money to advocate their candidates and causes. How much did Soros donate? Something like $26 million to defeat Bush? (His own words). Not picking on Soros, at least here, he was just the most obvious one. Republicans raised a ton a money too. Believe me, if the Internet is immune from campaign finance laws, they will very quickly become obsolete.
Now, if on the other hand we want to keep the FEC laws somewhat intact, it seems to me that the Internet has to be addressed in some fashion. In the most draconian sense I suppose that every post I did here during the 2004 election could have been "charged" as a campaign contribution.
Maybe not a bad idea, might have received some "invites"..... In a lesser sense perhaps someone who simply participates in online debate and has a blog that very few people pay any attention to would be exempt as long as I don't attempt to raise money for a politcal cause. There's a can of worms there though as well.....To make this up close and personal, I would ask the question, "Where does that put America's Debate?" Mike has ad banners here to political websites that advocate political causes. Some posters also put ads to political causes in their signatures. Does this get "charged" and counted by the FEC as a political contribution? If I include a link in a post to something at the RNC website, have I made a contribution to the RNC? On the surface it appears to be small potatoes to be sure, but when one considers how much money was raised in 2004 from the Internet, maybe it's not so small after all. It is entirely reasonable to believe that all sides could use the Internet as an end run around campaign finance laws. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is something to consider in this debate I think.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.