Posted on 03/05/2005 8:43:21 PM PST by Brian Scott
As most of you already know Cnet's Declan McCullagh has written a chilling article that all political bloggers should read. The article is dedicated to an interview McCullagh had with Federal Election commissioner Bradley Smith, in which they discuss the ramification for Polibloggers. In short, our freedom of speech has been effectively ripped from us due to the McCain and Feingold Campaign Reform Act. Heres a cliffsnote version of the interview with my thoughts peppered in. In the interest of brevity I only included those questions I found most compelling.
Question 1. What rules will apply to the internet that didn't before McCain-Fiengold?
Answer: Would a link to a candidate's page be considered a contribution? The FEC believes it to be.
It shouldn't. Sure my site increases a candidates exposure, but why should exposure equate to a monetary contribution in the eyes of the government? If I point a person to where he can give money to a political campaign that is not a contribution. The money that person donates however is a contribution.
(i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office; or
The definitions also go into what a contribution should not include such as "the value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee."
Wouldn't bloggers fall into that catagory as long as they do not accept contributions from a political party? Maybe I don't understand the use of the word "services".
Question 2. How can the government place a value on a blog that praises some politician?
Answer: It is determined by guildlines made in a FEC advisory opinion done in the late 90's. In short, a dollar amount is calculated by determining the amount of cost and electricity that would go towards political advocacy.
For me thats about 2 to 6 hours every day. I blog at work during lunch too, I guess that counts as well.
Question 3. What is the cost of a hyperlink to the government?
Answer: No clue. But it might mean bad news for the really popular political bloggers. Why you ask? Bradely give this example:
"Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly."
I suspect bloggers will begin to limit the number of links on their post. I wonder if blogs will become more visceral in their attacks and less even handed. Instead of showering praise for a single candidate, you could do an entire blog that never mentions your love for Politician "A". Instead the entire site would be dedicated to attacking politician "B". The net affect would be useful for politician "A" but you never really come out in favor for him/her. What will the government do then? Will the try and ascertain the damaged caused by the blogger and then place a price on it?
Question 4. What is "the real impact on the judge's decision" to include internet communications. (which used to be exempt)
Answer: Her decisions will not limit ads. Any coordinated activity over the internet would need government regulation as a minimum. Those considered "the press" will be exempt. The problem is determining who is "the press". Bradley states:
"It becomes a really complex issue that would strike deep into the heart of the Internet and the bloggers who are writing out there today."
Wikepedia definition of Freedom of the Press:
Freedom of the press is the guarantee by a government of free public speech often through a state constitution for its citizens, and associations of individuals extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for the public consumption.
"news gathering, and the process involved in obtaining information for public consumption." needs a definition I guess.
"the statute refers to periodicals or broadcast, and it's not clear the Internet is either of those. Second, because there's no standard for being a blogger, anyone can claim to be one, and we're back to the deregulate Internet that the judge objected to."
McCain-Fiengold's definitions of freedom of speach:
Up yours America!
Question 5. Whats going to happen to the people like Cnet and Salon vs bloggers?
Answer: You will both be regulated.
Question 6. Whats going to happen next?
Answer: Since no one in congress is willing to stand up and say we can't have this, "grass roots internet activity is in danger."
Question 7. If the law doesnt change who will the FEC target?
Answer: Anyone who links to a candidates website.
More specifically, "We're talking about any decision by an individual to put a link (to a political candidate) on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet."
Simply put, this is a travesty of monumental proportions. The sacrifice our forefathers made on the battle fields, which gave us our first amendment right to free speech, have been discarded like day old trash. The tragic irony in it is that John McCain, a bonafide POW war hero, has acted against what he so proudly fought for in Vietnam. I know this was a bi-partisan effort, but there is no excuse for this. Congress, McCain/Fiengold, the President, and the Supreme court should be ashamed of their actions and should do all that is necessary to make sure our freedoms are restored.
So this is the opus blog then?
Ok..c'ya!
This IS the internet after all. Don't expect a weeping widow at the graveside.
I'll go read the blogs who have two-fingered this rubbish, and will post on.
What is the best way to go about repealing CFR?
Honestly, you've got me- the best thing would have to never let it see the light of day, but that option is not available. I raised Holy Hell with my aha! "representatives" for the little good it did.
I've read on other activism posts that a letter ( short, polite, and pointed ) still gets the most weight- a letter is said to be representative of about a thousand votes, and a phone call about 500.
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.