FEC Wants To Exempt Blogs From Campaign Ads

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) issued proposed rules Thursday attempting to eliminate any restrictions on political blogging. The rules focus on paid online advertising and political e-mail instead.

FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said the panel is still trying to determine whether a specific regulation exempting bloggers needs to be written, or if blogging would be protected by simply not including it in the proposed rules.

"That's the sort of discussion we've been having, and however we resolve it, I think it's pretty clear that the result is not going to be bad for bloggers," Weintraub said in a statement.

In the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), Congress limited how individuals can pay for communications that are coordinated with political campaigns, including any form of "general public political advertising." The FEC issued a regulation specifically exempting from the BCRA anything transmitted over the Internet, but a federal court said the regulation was inconsistent with the law.

"The judge's decision does not mean that the FEC must now regulate all, most, or even very much Internet activity. We're faced with a question of statutory interpretation, and the phrase we're interpreting is 'general public political advertising," Weintraub said.

The only Internet activity the proposed rules define as public communications and subject to FEC regulations are advertisements placed for a fee on another person's Web site.

The proposed regulations also fine-tunes the FEC's current disclaimer rules requirements for certain political e-mail. Currently the FEC requires disclaimers if 500 substantially similar unsolicited e-mails are sent. The FEC's Thursday refinement defines unsolicited e-mail as that sent to lists purchased from third parties.

According to the FEC, the new e-mail proposal is meant to ensure that the regulations only cover spam and not communications to large groups of an individual's own personal contacts.

Regarding blogs, Weintraub added, "We are not the speech police. The FEC does not tell private citizens what they can or cannot say, on the Internet, or elsewhere."

The FEC's proposed regulations specifically exempts any Internet activity by unpaid individuals or volunteers in their own residences, on their own equipment or on publicly available equipment.

"The good news is that most of the people we've heard from seem to be urging us in the same direction. Everyone agrees that the Internet is a potent and dynamic tool for fostering political debate, and that any regulatory efforts should proceed on a 'less is more' theory," Weintraub said.

The six-member FEC approved the proposed rules for a 60-day public comment period before a June hearing on the regulations.

"Today is the beginning of a process that, like the Internet, is open and interactive in nature. This document defines the scope of the rulemaking we are about to undertake," Weintraub said. "We cannot proceed unless this document is approved by a majority of the six commissioners. The notice seeks public comment on a wide range of issues related to the topic at hand. If you think we're not getting it right, tell us."

From Polipundit with a follow up:
FEC Rules

Since you’re reading this blog, you probably like it. And you probably want to keep reading it in the future. But that may not be possible. You see, I may go to jail for writing about politics.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has released a set of proposed “rules” for political speech on the Internet. These rules specify exactly what speech is, and isn’t, allowed on the Internet.

I’m not kidding. They really do want to regulate political speech on the Internet. Bloggers, like yours truly, could be fined and punished for writing about a political candidate, if the FEC decides that we violated some aspect of their byzantine “rules.”

Are you as shocked and outraged by this as I am? What kind of country do you want to live in? America? Or China, where people go to jail for using the Internet for political speech?

Fortunately, there is something you can do. The FEC is asking for your comments on the proposed “rules.”

A suggestion on comments: If you don’t have the time (and who does?) to read and understand all the “rules” the FEC is proposing, just say that the FEC should protect the right to free speech above all other considerations.

Please send your comments to internet@fec.gov. Include your name and postal address.

Otherwise, the next time the lying liberal media pulls a RatherGate, no blogger may be able to challenge them.

-- PoliPundit

More on the FEC Rules

I noted yesteday that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) had drafted “rules” that specified what political speech is, and isn’t, allowed on the Internet. As if that wasn’t outrageous enough, Red State has uncovered an earlier draft of these rules. The draft is truly draconian, and confirms our worst fears.

If you like this blog, if you don’t want me to go to jail for writing about politics, if you want to continue hearing the news that the lying liberal media supresses, then you have to do something about it.

The FEC is soliciting comments on its proposed “rules.” Please write to the FEC at internet@fec.gov. Address your e-mail to “Mr. Brad C. Deutsch, Assistant General Counsel.” Be sure to include your name and postal address.

Here are some comments polipundit.com readers have sent to the FEC:

Sirs: I appreciate that you have tried to insulate the Internet and blogs from undue interference in free speech by your proposed rules.

However, as with any rules, and the ability of attorneys to manage and to manipulate them, just the very act of rules will inevitably lead to both dilemmas of interpretation and enforcement and to creative ways around them. The result will be more rules, interpretations, and evasions.

Meanwhile, the victim will be the news and information consumer, the beneficiary of free speech. The expense and expertise to evade will limit the willingness and ability of those who are not professional communicators or politicians to participate in the public forum of ideas. Other consumers will, thus, be limited in what they are exposed to, for their own right to make decisions.

The example of 527’s is instructive. They are a legal way to evade the BRAC rules, but require expensive legal expertise to do so. Despite many times higher expenditures by pro-Kerry 527’s, the more grassroots and lower expenditures of the pro-Swift Boat 527 had far greater measured impact. In other words, the consumer is capable of making choices, and the consumer’s choices will govern the impact of political communication. That is the genius of free speech.

Another point of problem with the proposed rules relates to shopping libel suits in British courts against Americans speaking in America. Bloggers may have to assume corporate shells in order to insulate themselves from these free speech abuses. But, the proposed rules do not protect the free speech of corporate-entity blogs.

Again, in the proposed rules extending the BRAC’s interest in limiting corporate political speech, they also limit the ability of bloggers to protect their own right of free speech from abuses occurring in the British courts, and thus unduly limit Americans’ free speech.

In conclusion, the FEC should further adjust its proposed rules, if rules there must be, to allow corporate-entity blogs, and to recognize that any rules should be drafted to be an equivalent exemption to that right of free speech of the formerly established media.

I am not myself a blogger. I am a consumer of a wide range of news and information sources, including blogs, all valuable inputs to my rights of choice as a citizen.

Bruce Kesler ChFC REBC RHU CLU (Address)

Dear Sirs:

It has been brought to my attention that the Federal Election Commission is contemplating setting up rules to regulate political speech on the Internet. As a retired vereran, words cannot begin to describe my outrage that any arm of our government would even discuss such an action much less consider implementing it. The Founders viewed free speech (especially political speech) as the cornerstone of a free people. There is a reason that it’s guarantee is contained in the FIRST Ammendment. In my opinion, if you decide to attempt to regulate political speech on the Internet or in any other venue, the response will be a crescendo of civil disobedience the likes of which this country has not seen since the Revolutionary War.

Dear sir or madam,

I recently recieved a copy of the FEC’s proposed political speech rules for theinternet. I have yet to review them entirely, as I haven’t had the time. However, I wish to remind the FEC of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

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.

In practice, this has been applied to the government as a whole.

I would like to remind the FEC that it is unconstitutional to prohibit speech. This is, I believe, a natural right, that no government may take away, and the Constitution under which the FEC operates specifically affirms that right. Please note that the First Amendment does not read “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, except when that speech is political.” There are no qualifications to free speech. Any attempt to curb political speech infringes upon the rights of all of us.

I would further like to remind the FEC that the regulation of political speech was a key legal necessity for the likes of Nazi Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Any attempt to stifle political speech is anti-democratic, anti-libertarian, unconstitutional, and un-American.

I ask you to not limit political speech on the internet, and to roll back any limitations that currently exist.

Thank you, Gavin Jarrett Dow

Dear sir or madam,

I have reviewed a copy of the FEC’s proposed political speech rules for the Internet. I am, frankly, APPALLED.

The rights of pornographers are to be vigorously defended, while the rights of those of us who want to be able to share and discuss views are to be regulated IF we dare to share and discuss views about how our government is run.

During the 2004 election the Internet showed itself to be a valuable resource for people to “meet” people they would otherwise never have contact with, and discuss the substantive issues of our day. The Internet has shown itself to be VERY self-regulating in this regard, and even a valuable resource in vetting news stories.

In effect the Internet has functioned like a vast “water cooler”, where people can gather if they choose, and discuss what they want. Is the FEC next going to regulate speech around the company “water cooler”? Obviously not. Because the “water cooler” is limited, and has no research facilities associated with it, as the Internet does…and thus is not “threat” to you. It is obviously the ability of large numbers of citizens to share information, views, and experiences that presents a “danger”…and thus must be stopped. If we’re just looking at smut then we are no risk to you.

I spent 8 years in the Marines defending this country, and the right to free speech within it. The Internet, specifically the blogs, have given those of us who do NOT march in the streets for various causes, and who do NOT print and distribute handbills for those causes, a venue for making our views heard. Disabling or limiting this venue will NOT stop it…just make us all criminals.

If you are unaware of the existence of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States please let me know and I will arrange to have one provided to you.

Sincerely,

From: (pkok) Date: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:04:55 PM To: internet@fec.gov

Subject: Stop tampering with free speech and the internet

To the FEC:

Keep your hands, rules, and regulations off our free speech on the internet. It is THE ONLY VERIFIABLE SOURCE THE PEOPLE HAVE FOR WHAT THE ACTUAL NEWS IS, AND WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE. This is made possible by LINKS that go to source material where someone seeking information and truth may search for it. The system as it fuctions is self correcting, and covers the entire political and social landscape. UNLIKE the MSM, when a blog fails or deceives, it is instantly outed and its creditability loss. So it is SELF-REGULATING, and doesn’t need ANY artificial controlling authority. ( It also appears to be pretty good at spotting fake memos and talking points, too!) You have neither the capability or authority to do that. All you can do is institute proceedings, erect barriers, deny equal opportunity to free speech, judge speech, cause lawsuits, and present us, the U.S. Taxpayers with a healthy bill for your services in the havoc you wreak.

LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE. PERIOD!

Further, you should be ashamed of the McCain-Fiengold travesty. Thanks for nothing. Thanks for making a broken promise even more corrupt! Why aren’t you working instead to repeal that ADMITTEDLY minority finessed, pre-packaged and paid for special interest legislation? Based on your actions, one can easily conclude that you are an egalitarian group actively working to suppress free speech in this country. George Soros has more right to “free” speech than the average citizen blogger because he can afford it?! I can’t adequately express to you my outrage at your arrogance. You have earned the gaze, and now the approbation of thousands of witnesses.

KNOW THIS: We are legion, and we are watching you. WE WILL NEVER ALLOW YOU TO PUT OUT OUR EYES.

Sincerely,

(pkok)

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.