Posted on 03/24/2006 10:00:27 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Edited on 03/24/2006 10:20:15 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
The Internet's freewheeling days as a place exempt from the heavy hand of federal election laws are about to end.
Late Friday, the Federal Election Commission released a 96-page volume of Internet regulations that have been anticipated for more than a year and represent the government's most extensive foray yet into describing how bloggers and Web sites must abide by election law restrictions.
The rules (click here for PDF) say that paid Web advertising, including banner ads and sponsored links on search engines, will be regulated like political advertising in other types of media. They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.
If the regulations are approved by the FEC at its meeting on Monday, they will represent a substantial change from a far more aggressive version of the regulations seen by CNET News.com last year. An outcry from bloggers and even members of Congress appears to have caused FEC lawyers--who are under court order to regulate the Internet--to rethink the rules and adopt a more laissez-faire approach.
Though not all the implications of the 96-page document were immediately clear, one prominent advocate of Internet free speech said the rules are preferable over what could have happened.
"They've tried to take a light hand, and it looks like they might have succeeded," Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman who teaches law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, said in a telephone interview. Smith said, though, that he was not able to review the document in detail.
Also exempted from the sweep of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act--better known as the McCain-Feingold law--are e-mail messages sent to 500 or fewer people, posting a video unless it's a paid advertisement, and online activities done by volunteers even if the actions are undertaken without the knowledge of the campaign...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com
When they outlaw rich men buying politicians (what this campaign finance regulation b/s all started out being about) only rich outlaws will own them.
Hmmm... well you know what I mean.
You got that right.
Emails to 500 or fewer people
That's ridiculous.
There are a huge number of churches, clubs, fraternities, service organizations, etc. with member lists bigger than that.
This is a clear violation of free speech.
1. The gov't tells me to whom I'm allowd to communicate.
2. The gov't tells me what I'm allowed to communicate.
3. The gov't tells me when I'm allowed to communicate.
I don't mind arguing with a private citizen or a political hack but I'd like to know the difference. Especially in an environment where truth is oft times the last concern and accurate information is the basis for an informed judgment.
Does it matter that the lie is born of ignorance or blind loyalty or sinister, commercial intent? To me it does.
I's rather face a squad of British regulars, marching down the country lane in their bright, crimson tunics, armed with muskets and driven by national pride, than a little old lady, armed with a state-of-the-art data base, fronted by a political party, who appears to be just one of the common folks.
You can't tell the players without a program is born of the wisdom of sad experiences.
Hey, this is supposed to be a free country. And if freedom is regulated, it's obviously not freedom. In love, war and politics, let the best man (or little old lady with a db) win.
Politics has a healthy bit of both I suppose.
I keep thinking however, there's got to be a reason our society has demanded that all politicians, foreign agents and lobbyists register before engaging in their trade within the formal, political arena.
It's to provide cover and protection for the guilty (corrupt politicians). I say catch them taking the bribes and hang 'em high.
Come on, Jim you know why.
"You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. Your fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system...that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be easier to deal with."
Meet the new boss......same as the old boss.
L
I think political speech should remain unregulated, beyond the common sense restrictions outlined by the founding fathers. Truth is regulated by the observer, not the provider. The more viewpoints that enter the debate, the healthier and more informative the debate.
I don't think money is a factor in the debate unless it's used to exclude or bribe. If bribery is involved, it's no longer a debate, but rather a choreographed presentation.
Exclusion through the recently proposed, price manipulation by common carriers is also equally troubling. The developing strategies of the big telcos to turn their network infrastructures into use weighted, toll roads is very troubling with respect to this debate. Taken to a logical conclusion, it will silence the little guy and this forum. Again, the FCC is at the center of what ought to be a public debate, in the congress, regarding free speech, not restraint of interstate trade.
"So would I."
I wouldn't go along with that, but in the interest of fairness and objectivity, I would support the McCain-Feingold act that makes it a felony for any member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to comment either via speech or the Internet, or participate in any way in a campaign in which Mrs. Clinton is running for office.
Hillary wants a "gatekeeper" or an "editor" before things are posted to the Internet.
HILLARY'S SECRET WAR:The plan to silence Internet journalists
Well of course they are.
Why would you expect them to be any different than say EPA regulations or OSHA regulations?
Same government, same culture of bureaucrats.*
-
*That's "culture" as in something you find in a Petri dish...
Get rid of McCain
Get rid of Feingold
Get rid of McCain-Feingold!
I would have suggested some other part of the camel than the nose...
That's why I mentioned the smell.
Thanks ntnychik. This sounds better but this is going to have to be watched closely. Hope they are all being inundated with letters, email and calls!
After the lawsuit we'll need to denounce McCain as persona Non Grata in the Republican Party and oppose, combat and resist the nomination of John McCain for President.
Actually Jim, I don't believe this was EVER about rich men
buying influence, that was just an excuse to pacify the masses, this was always about denying the people a voice
in their own government.
McC is NOT to be trusted in any way, and must NOT be a candidate for the highest office in the land.
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.