Posted on 02/14/2005 9:43:03 AM PST by unixfox
FEC May Tighten Restrictions On Internet Political Activity Mon Feb 14 2005 10:38:41 ET
The Federal Election Commission next month will begin looking at tightening restrictions on political activities on the Internet, ROLL CALL reports Monday.
The FEC is planning to examine the question of how Internet activities, when coordinated with candidates' campaigns, fit into the definition of 'public communications.
Specifically, the FEC is planning to examine the question of how Internet activities, when coordinated with candidates' campaigns, fit into the definition of "public communications." While coordinated communications are considered campaign contributions and therefore subject to strict contribution limits, current FEC regulations adopted in 2002 carve out an exemption for coordinated political communications that are transmitted over the Internet.
Developing...
As long as we have the help of God and a few former Marines.
Of course the word "coordinated" would have to be defined. This is a really pointless measure and an attack on free speech just like campaign finance reform.
From my cold dead mouse hand ...
Like we won't be able to figure out how to do EXACTLY what we want? LoL.
And Moveon.org .. hmmmm ... wasn't DKos being paid by the Dean Campaign also?
Peer-to-peer Free Republic.
Agreed.
And it won't stop them from trying.
BUT - each little push by the Imperial Federal Government brings us closer to Civil War II; which is inevitable in any case.
I speak my mind on the net. If they have a problem with that, too bad, and that's all I gotta say about that.
Ssssh don't stop the Panic it is soo much fun to watch. Some people actually post from UNDER their beds.
Please take your sanity and go. This is PANIC time. Panic I say.
Have you ever met an expansion of government power you DIDN'T like?
I don't like the smell of this.
LOL.
By that, I mean that by the time the FEC finishes taking a complaint, examining and analyzing the case, then issuing a ruling, the only thing left for them to do if they find illegal activity is to fine the party or candidate and move on.
This leaves the unscrupulous to do what they will to win by any means, then pay a slap-on-the-wrist fine and continue to consolidate power from ruling in office.
So, what's the point of the FEC? I don't know.
Or President Bush when he signed it.
abolish the fec.
From http://www.neoperspectives.com/tsunami_tyranny.htm
Lord Acton famously stated, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." (29) The great thing about a Republic is that almost all power is concentrated at the local or individual level, thus limiting corruption. This is why it has always been perplexing to see the attempts to unconstitutionally restrict the actions of free individuals with all of these campaign finance reform laws that never ever end up working. The simple solution is to reduce the power of the Federal government! If government doesn't have the power to do anything, then why should private industry give money to political candidates? The more power the Federal government has, the more money and corruption will flow in and out of the system. In the Federal government today even non-partisan boards, panels, commissions, and agencies with power become corrupted; members leave and take high paying jobs in the industries they are supposed to regulate; cronyism and political favoritism run rife. The corruption and special interest benefit is derived from the power itself. The power needs to be returned to the individual.
But only the foolish believed that. There was no doubt in my mind that the law would stand scrutiny by the Court AND that is would not make a bit of difference. I was correct on both counts.
This is another non-starter and will not limit us nor anyone not tied to a political campaign.
However the campaigns that will feel the bite of such changes to the law are not (ignoring, of course, the portions of those campaigns that already are beyond the reach of the US Government because they originate in the People's Republic of China, the headquarters of the United Nations, and the newsrooms of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and CBS).
Is this still America?
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.