Free Republic

Democrats on the Federal Elections Commission have begun the process of monitoring speech and press on the internet in order to supposedly tackle the issue of “too much money in politics.” The claim is that powerful corporations and rich “fat cats” are anonymously influencing elections through support of various blogs, news sites, and video publications online. The internet has turned the entire political dynamic in the United States on its head. People now have access to an unlimited wealth of information about every topic pertinent to policymaking. They don’t have to wait for an elected official or the mainstream media...

The left lifts its boot toward the free flow of information We knew this was coming. Within the last couple of weeks, both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission declared their intention to regulate the Internet. Fascists always explain their actions as efforts to either make something more efficient, “fair,” or to supposedly “protect” their target. Sometimes they simply lie, like saying they’re nationalizing health insurance to make it more affordable and to increase access to health care. Now, with the feds’ latest effort, their new slogan might as well be, “If you like your Internet, you...

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog Even before adopting net neutrality, here are 26 actions by which the Obama administration has already proven itself to be incompetent when it comes to the internet The fact that Obama refuses to allow the public to see his 332 page net neutrality plan until after its implementation is voted on is, by itself, reason enough for me to oppose the plan.I would think that even the biggest supporters of net neutrality would be curious as to why Obama won’t let people see his plan until after it is implemented.However, in addition to that, here are...

The Federal Election Commission is considering expanding their regulatory power to include political speech online… Yeah, let’s regulate the internet. I mean, free speech can’t just be expected to run wild or anything, right? The FEC held an open hearing yesterday to determine if they will move forward on clamping down on political content online (such as blogs, YouTube videos, and other “free” messaging). According to CNS News:Last October, FEC Chairwoman Ann Ravel issued a statement in which she complained that the agency was not doing enough to monitor activity on the Internet.Right… Because I know I’m terrified that the feds...

The federal government, taking pages from the playbooks of Communist nations like China, is preparing regulations that will have profound impacts on free speech online. If the regulations succeed via the Federal Elections Committee, any posts, videos or news stories posted in support or opposition of a candidate will be considered a political contribution. The FEC closely regulates contribution limits, meaning that blogs and Youtubers would have their free speech capped once their content value surpasses the spending limit. In other words, your posts, comments or videos supporting or opposing a candidate will be treated like donations or campaign independent...

The internet is under assault. At the Federal Communications Commission, regulators are hard at work crafting a plan that would turn the internet into a taxable utility. In Congress, lawmakers are determining whether and how best to tax the sales that occur on the internet. And over at the Federal Election Commission, the regulation of political speech that takes place on the internet is back on the table. In October, then FEC Vice Chairwoman Ann M. Ravel promised that she would renew a push to regulate online political speech following a deadlocked commission vote that would have subjected political videos...

Claiming that thousands of public comments condemning “dark money” in politics can’t be ignored, the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission on Wednesday appeared ready to open the door to new regulations on donors, bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and campaigns. During a broad FEC hearing to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that eliminated some donor limits, proponents encouraged the agency to draw up new funding disclosure rules and require even third-party internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would extinguish a 2006 decision to keep the agency’s hands off the Internet.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the Drudge Report. The hearing is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC last year, which struck down the FEC’s previous cap on aggregate campaign contributions from a single donor in an election cycle.

(CNSNews.com) -- The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the Drudge Report. The hearing is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC last year, which struck down the FEC’s previous cap on aggregate campaign contributions from a single donor in an election cycle. Before the decision, individuals were limited to a combined total of $46,200 in contributions to all...

Video at link....

Democrats have been salivating for some time with their desire to control internet political speech The desire to kill political speech on the internet is nothing new, when it comes to the liberal left progressive Democrats. Their goal is not to win in the arena of ideas, but to eliminate any voice that dares to speak out against them in the arena of ideas. In the battle to silence dissent online, an attack is being launched by the FEC (Federal Elections Commission). Regardless of Congress, regardless of the First Amendment which tells the Federal Government to keep its hands off...

In 2014 censorship has become a product of the left. Arguably censorship in the United States has always been a product of the progressives. They have forever tried to link National Socialist book burnings with conservatives. In reality, it is modern liberals who want to censor free speech. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law sought to impose restrictions on who may speak prior to an election. The progressive law intended to limit speech to government approved speakers. Namely politicians and the mainstream press. Everyone else saw their right to speak restricted. The Citizens United case, which centered around the showing...

The Federal Election Commission deadlocked in a crucial Internet campaign speech vote announced late last week, leaving online political blogging and videos free of many of the reporting requirements attached to broadcast ads — for now. All three Republican-backed members voted against restrictions, but they were opposed by the three Democrat-backed panel members, including Vice Chairwoman Ann M. Ravel, who said she will lead a push next year to come up with rules for government political speech on the Internet. It would mark a major reversal for the commission, which for nearly a decade has protected the

In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that the left wants to regulate conservative political sites and even news outlets like the Drudge Report. Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said. The powerplay followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote...

Josh Blackman links to an interesting new speech by (retired) Justice Stevens about the Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence. Among other things, Justice Stevens argues that there ought to be little protection (or no protection?) for campaign contributions made across state lines. He begins . . .: In the first sentence of his controlling opinion [in McCutcheon v. FEC] the Chief Justice correctly states that there “is no right more basic to our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” 188 L. Ed.2d 468, 482. And in his concluding paragraph he correctly describes that right as “the...

Mark Udall, who yesterday had to apologize for his use of beheaded Americans as a political shield in his weekend debate with Republican opponent Rep. Cory Gardner, has been hit with an accusation of a campaign finance violation. What Senator Mark Udall did, which was caught on camera by Revealing Politics, is a rather blatant violation of the Federal Elections Commission rule which bans the practice of federal candidates soliciting non-federal funds. While a named guest at a fundraising event for State Representative Crisanta Duran, Chairwoman of Colorado’s powerful Joint Budget Committee and rumored contender for House Majority Leader, Udall...

Federal Election Commission Chairman Lee Goodman issued a stark warning on Wednesday when he suggested that political speech and press freedoms were under assault by federal regulators. In August, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) will engage in a bus tour promoting his new book, The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea. This was revealed in the release of a letter from the FEC following a request from Ryan’s attorneys to ensure that the House Budget Committee chairman remained in compliance with campaign regulations. Ryan’s team asked for and received permission to use campaign funds to purchase his own book in order...

California voters will have a chance in the November elections to vote on a ballot measure asking them if Congress should amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The Governor of California signed into law Senate Bill 1272 on July 16 -- the Overturn Citizens United Act -- to put the advisory question on the November 2014 ballot. The group behind the initiative is Money Out Voters In, who were supported by Common Cause. Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to accountable government in the public interest. "This is a great day for...

Federal employees, like all Americans, are entitled to hold passionate political beliefs. Most executive branch federal employees, however, may not engage in certain political activities, thanks to an anti-conflict of interest principle enshrined in a federal law called the Hatch Act. To wit, President Bush requested the resignation of his GSA administrator in 2008 after the US Office of Special Counsel determined she had violated federal law by participating in a video conference with Karl Rove and sending out partisan letters. (The New York Times was scandalized at the time, though I strangely can´t find their editorial calling for Kathleen

The lesson of Watergate has not gone unheeded in the federal bureaucracy even more than forty years later. At the time, many wondered why Richard Nixon didn’t burn the tapes as investigators circled the White House. These days, the trick is to burn the e-mails, and it’s not just happening at the IRS. A probe into Hatch Act violations at the Federal Election Commission ran aground when the electronic communications of the suspect — a former colleague of Lois Lerner — had her computer hard drive “recycled.”Sound familiar? The Federal Election Commission recycled the computer hard drive of April...