Blogs Bristle at FEC's Internet Political Speech Proposal (this affects you)

Captain's Quarters ^ | 3/4/05 | Captain Ed

[chiller]

Captain's Quarters has started this ball rolling:

March 04, 2005 An Open Letter To The United States Senate

To the honorable Senators McCain and Feingold, et al:

I have read with considerable dismay the effect that your recent lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, upheld by Judge Colleen Kollar-Ketelly, will have on political speech on the Internet. I write a political media-watchdog blog, Captain's Quarters, which enjoys a not-insubstantial daily readership. No one pays me to do this; I operate my site and write on topics purely from personal convictions and a deep desire to improve the world around me and make the nation stronger. I can unequivocally say the same about my many colleagues in the "blogosphere", both liberal and conservative.

Now we understand from Bradley Smith, one of the FEC commissioners, that your lawsuit forcing them to regulate speech on the Internet will have the effect of turning our efforts into in-kind contributions, especially when we provide hyperlinks back to candidate sites for referencing their positions and excerpt text from their on-line documents. Hyperlinks allow our readers to check our references to ensure our accuracy and context, and perform the hygienic task of holding our politicians accountable for their campaign practices. All of this not only should fall under the protection of the First Amendment, but it should be the primary reason for the First Amendment -- to protect and encourage free political speech and foster genuine debate.

Your legislation and the accompanying lawsuit that forced the FEC to regulate Internet political speech threaten all of that. If my links to political sites such as Georgewbush.com and Johnkerry.com counted as contributions and I was forced to accept responsibility for the cash value that the FEC designated to them, I would have been charged with several misdemeanors and possibly felonies, as I provided many such links during the past election cycle. During this cycle, my blog published over 680 essays on the presidential election. In fact, I linked to Senator Kerry's site four times as often as President Bush's site, which would have meant to the FEC that I was a major contributor to his campaign -- when in fact I opposed Senator Kerry and supported President Bush. These regulations would have forced me to retain the services of a full-time accountant and retain an attorney to understand when and where I overcontributed. At the very least, the burden of proof would be on me to make the FEC believe that my blog does not constitute in-kind contributions subject to the limits imposed on both hard and soft money contributions.

The effect of this would have been to force me to shut down my blog, or convert it to something else. In fact, it would have caused me less legal heartache to convert my site to a porn blog and do nothing but post hard-core pictures all day long. In the twisted environment of the McCain-Feingold Act, that kind of website would enjoy greater First Amendment protection than my political speech, a result for which every single Senator should feel shame and outrage.

Each of you should read the Constitution you swore to uphold and defend, and reflect on the unequivocal language of our forefathers:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We may debate about the effect of unregulated cash on our electoral system, but if this new FEC effort comes to pass, the only people debating will be the corporate-owned media and the politicians. The rest of us will have been effectively bound and gagged, unable to contribute in any way thanks to the efforts of those who fear their own constituents. You can be assured that none of us in the blogosphere will fail to recognize those who do not act to defend our rights to free and unfettered political speech, and regardless of political party, none of us will rest until those voices of repression are stripped of office by the voters they hold in such low regard.

I, for one, will not be daunted by your attempts to stifle us. My many friends and colleagues on both sides of the political aisle stand as ready as I to defend the Constitution. We demand a hearing on McCain-Feingold, with open testimony before the press and our colleagues, and we demand action to reform or repeal this dangerous and un-American muzzle on political speech.

We await your response, sirs.

Edward Morrissey Captain's Quarters

UPDATE: A lot of these e-mails have bounced back. Apparently, our public servants don't like direct e-mail and require people to hit their websites to send them messages. At Town Hall, they have a Web form set up to do this, but many of the autoresponses indicate that they will not reply to messages sent from constituents outside their state.

Here's where you can help me out. Please copy my letter above and paste it into a message with an introduction of your own and send it to both Senators from your home state. That way we can be sure that all 100 Senators not only see this letter but your endorsement of it.

Thank you for your continued support!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Regarding JimRob's opinion,

)

This was way back in 9/28 of last year.

[discussion of a Yahoo report, "FEC to Appeal Campaign Finance Ruling (Judge Also Orders FEC To Regulate Internet)]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229856/posts


To: Diddle E. Squat

Vote out the RATS!! We cannot afford to allow John Kerry and the Democrats the opportunity to install any more of these socialist bastards.

posted on 09/28/2004 7:01:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"The judge also ordered the commission to take a step it had resisted: regulating at least some political activity conducted over the Internet."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229856/posts

[Cold Heat]

Yeah, and they have no clue as to what and how.

That was my point.

The unintended consequence of regulation was the 527's rise to visibility.

The issues regarding free speech are being, or have been zapped by the courts. But they seem intent on hanging on to the soft money controls and the restrictions of advocacy ads several weeks prior to the voting.

I think this blogger thing is overblown. Their target is the 527's. A problem they created.

But, the thing is, that any attempts will result in some new gimmick. They are wasting their time and my patience.

I have always agreed with Newt's idea of opening it wide, and letting it bump. Just require immediate disclosure of all the money sources and put some teeth in it!

[Happy2BMe]

"Frankly, I don't like any of it, and the Supreme court needs to take a look see at this, rather than allow the appeals courts to tinker with it."

====================================

You can trust your country's security to the USSC.

* * *

"These judges who legislate instead of adjudicate, do it without being responsible to one single solitary voter for their actions. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a brilliant young physician from Pennsylvania named Benjamin Rush.

* * *

The next step in denying God's sovereignty over the United States will go to these nine people . .

"The question is or at least ought to be, how can such a small, godless, minority have such influence over our courts and legislative processes?"

Answer:

U.S. Supreme Court, 2005 - The Oligarchy*

(All Your Sovereignty Are Belong To Us!)

Back Row (left to right): Ginsburg, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
Front Row (left to right): Scalia, Stevens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy

ol•i•gar•chy
Pronunciation: 'ä-l&-"gär-kE, 'O-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -chies
Date: 1542
1 : government by the few
2 : a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
3 : an organization under oligarchic control

sov•er•eign•ty
Variant(s): also sov•ran•ty /-tE/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soveraineté, from Old French, from soverain
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is SOVEREIGN; especially : an autonomous state

[Cold Heat]

LOL!

I don't know what you plan to do with all that.

You don't have grounds for impeachment, and replacement is the only thing we can do, and that is what we intend to do.

SCOTUS should have shot CFR down, as was expected, and not sent it back to the lower courts for tinkering. They passed the football back, and that was a mistake.

They can fix it, by accepting one of the numerous cases being brought against it. I hope they do.

[ihatemyalarmclock]

I stand with bush on the Terror War, Social Security reform, and any number of his other accomplishments as president.

But (and you knew there'd be a but) that said, signing McCain-Feingold was THE DUMBEST THING BUSH EVER DID.

And saying he expected the courts would overturn it, was THE LAMEST EXCUSE HE EVER MADE.

[MeekOneGOP]

Muchos gracias! :^D

[fouquier]

It is not a bill, the FEC is lost a court case Shays v. FEC and is being forced to change its rule to include the internet, they have a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on their website www.fec.gov and are accepting comments and suggestions until June 3 so anyone who is concerned should express those concerns to the FEC they are required by law to incorporate all comments into their final rule