Posted on 03/10/2005 6:57:36 AM PST by Valin
Short version:
McCain, Feingold, Weintraub to bloggers: Trust us. Bloggers to McCain, Feingold, Weintraub: We don't, that's why we're up in arms.
The longer version:
Here's the word from the two senators:
As the primary Senate authors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, we have spent years fighting to clean up elections and ensure that powerful monied interests do not drown out the voices of everyday Americans in our political system. Those interests don't want to give up any of their power, and their main tactic has been to try to whip up fears, however unfounded and unrealistic, about reform.
The latest misinformation from the anti-reform crowd is the suggestion that our bill will require regulation of blogs and other Internet communications. A recent federal court decision requires the Federal Election Commission to open a new rulemaking on Internet communications. The FEC will be looking at whether and how paid advertising on the Internet should be treated, i.e., should it be treated differently than paid advertising on television or radio. This is an important issue — since BCRA outlawed soft money, we need to make sure that the FEC doesn't try once again to subvert the law by creating loopholes. So far, the FEC has not even proposed new regulations. When it does so, there will be ample opportunity for comment and debate about whatever proposal the FEC makes.
This issue has nothing to with private citizens communicating on the Internet. There is simply no reason - none - to think that the FEC should or intends to regulate blogs or other Internet communications by private citizens. Suggestions to the contrary are simply the latest attempt by opponents of reform to whip up baseless fears. BCRA was intended to empower ordinary citizens, and it has been successful in doing so. We will continue to fight for that goal.
And Ellen Weintraub tells bloggers to chill out.
Reports of a Federal Election Commission plot to "crack down" on blogging and e-mail are wildly exaggerated.
First of all, we're not the speech police. We don't tell private citizens what they can or cannot say, on the Internet or anywhere else. The FEC regulates campaign finance. There's got to be some money involved, or it's out of our jurisdiction.
Second, let's get the facts straight. Congress, in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, limited how one can pay for communications that are coordinated with political campaigns, including any form of "general public political advertising."
The commission issued a regulation defining those communications to exempt anything transmitted over the Internet. A judge struck down that regulation as inconsistent with the law. So now we're under a judicial mandate to consider whether anything short of a blanket exemption that will do.
For example, can paid advertisements on the Web, when coordinated with a particular campaign, be considered an in-kind contribution to that campaign? Context is important, and the context here has everything to do with paid advertising, and nothing to do with individuals blogging and sending e-mails.
Third, anyone who says they know what this proposed regulation will address must be clairvoyant, because the commissioners have yet to consider even a draft of the document that will set out the scope of any such rule.
By law, we need to decide on the scope by a public vote, and the rulemaking cannot proceed without the votes of a majority of the six commissioners. At that point, we'll not only publicize what we're contemplating, we'll invite and consider public comment before we make any final decisions. That scope document (called a notice of proposed rulemaking) will be considered later this month. Until that happens, concerns about crackdowns are premature, at best.
I can't speak for my colleagues, but I'm not aware of anyone here who views this rulemaking as a vehicle for shutting down the right of any individual to use their electronic soapbox to voice their political views.
But here's the thing – there’s already considerable argument in reformers’ circles that the media exemption doesn't apply to blogs. And considering the broad definitions of in-kind donations, why wouldn't blogging be considered an in-kind donation to a campaign? And as we’ve seen from DaschlevThune and Kos’ work for the Dean campaign, pro-regulation forces are likely to argue that bloggers can and should be seen as potential wings of a campaign. Heck, Kos raised a bundle of cash for his endorsed candidates. Wouldn’t those actions be considered “communications that are coordinated with political campaigns”?
Bloggers are justifiably angry and suspicious that the regulatory impulse will stop at just regulating advertising on blogs. The McCain-Feingold law was spurred by the sense that “special interests” – i.e., groups of citizens that are not popular – are too effective in communicating their ideas and arguments and enacting their agenda. To rectify this, BCRA put all kinds of new limits on how one can spread that message at the exact time one would want to do it – the final months before Election Day. Internet-based communications were a “loophole” – i.e., a pipeline of speech and uncontrolled activity that needs to be shut off.
I'll stop worring when CFR is repealed. Until then, from my cold dead mouse hand ....
Don't worry.
Yeah, right.
And the IRS man: "I'm here to help you."
Is there any support at all for repealing, or at least fixing?
My question would be that my free speech has been drowned out 60 days before and election already. Why wouldn't McCain/Feingold try to drown my electronic voice?
The democrats' only hope for return to power is to severely damage free speech.
And McCain? He took the sole traitorous RINO role in the evil "campaign reform" after his shame at being one of the infamous Keating Five. The dude is unfit to be President.
Why wouldn't McCain/Feingold try to drown my electronic voice?
Well we can't have just ANYBODY speaking up about politics. Particularly right before an election when most people are paying attention.
Now sit down, shut up, and send in your money!
Uh-oh. They're from the government, and they're here to help.
Why then? Is fund raising a bad thing?
CONGRES SHALL PASS NO LAW! These guys refuse to remember that. AND THE SURPREMES BACKED THEM UP. They all got to go.
I spend money to connect to the internet. Therefore, if I communicate about political topics over the internet money is involved so it is under the FEC jurisdiction.
The broadcast controls were relatively easy for the FEC to implement. The FEC just had to aim at the actual broadcasters and their government issued broadcast license to enforce the rules. Clear Channel (etc.) wouldn't risk their licenses to allow people to express their opinion. However with the internet there aren't just points the government can apply pressure to shut people up. Even if they try to shut down onshore webhosts, there is still the rest of the world to host blogs of American citizens. To enforce any rules, they will have to arrest the people with opinions rather than just leaning on broadcasters. Imagine the outrage if the Robinsons had to do the perp walk for Free Republic.
Every time I hear McCain talk about Campaign Finance Reform, I just replace whatever he tries to say with "We have to destroy the First Amendment in order to save it."
Besides FReepers making phone calls and sending emails, not to my knowledge.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.