Your Blog Will Be Investigated Soon - (implications of future government intrustion into internet)

AMERICAN SPECTATOR.ORG ^ | MAY 10, 2005 | JOHN SAMPLES

[CHARLITE]

Insta Pundit
University of Tennessee
School of Law
Knoxville, TN
February 10, 2009

Dear Mr. Pundit,

I am writing to inform you that the Federal Election Commission has voted unanimously to support my recommendation that there is "reason to believe" that you have violated federal election law. Pursuant to that finding, the Commission has opened an investigation of these violations.

I hereby direct you to provide sworn written answers to the following questions related to your violation of federal election law.

1. Did you on or before August 30, 2008, state on your "blog" that "If elected, Hillary Clinton will be the worst U.S. president of my lifetime"?

2. Did you on or before August 10, 2008, state on your "blog" that "John McCain is an enemy of the First Amendment. If he is elected president, the nation is in trouble."?

3. Did your "blog" on August 10, 2008, and August 30, 2008, receive in excess of 100,000 visitors?

As part of its investigation, the Commission has subpoenaed your hosting company to provide information about activity on your "blog" on the dates in question in relation to the questions above.

Please note: if you refuse to provide sworn written answers to these questions, the Commission can ask a federal district court to enforce these subpoenas and orders.

In your last letter to the Commission, you stated that "my alleged blogging about Senators McCain and Clinton is protected from government regulation by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." You conclude: "The Constitution says 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.' No law means no law."

This is incorrect. The Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress may restrict the financing of campaigns to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court has also stated that Congress may close loopholes in campaign finance law by regulating speech that influences federal elections.

In 2008, Senators Clinton and McCain were the major party candidates in a federal election for the presidency. The Commission has ruled that messages that reach over 100,000 voters nationally (or 25,000 voters in an electioneering area) may be assumed to influence a federal election. The complaint against you alleges that your statements received well over 200,000 hits on the dates in question.

You also state that you received no payments to blog about the election from any candidate, candidate's committee, or political party. That is irrelevant. Congress and the Commission, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, have decided that your influence on federal elections justifies regulation of your activities. If your attempts to influence federal elections were not regulated, the entire structure of campaign finance regulation (and hence, the very integrity of our democracy) would be threatened.

Frankly, we are surprised that a law professor would make such absurd claims based on the outmoded "Congress shall make no law" view of the First Amendment. In fact, Congress has complete authority to regulate freedom of speech to realize the values underlying the First Amendment. If you doubt that, please read the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).

In 2007 Congress passed the Internet Freedom, Responsibility and Level Playing Field Act which states that Internet messages influencing federal elections shall be valued at ten cents per voter affected by the message. If the facts are as alleged in the complaint, you have apparently contributed $20,000 to the presidential campaigns of both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton. Federal law limits individual contributions to $2251.01 annually.

The Office of General Counsel will review your sworn, written answers to these questions and prepare a brief that recommends whether the Commission should find there is "probable cause to believe" you have violated federal election law. You or your attorney will have fifteen (15) days to respond to this brief.

Have a great day,

Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission

John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute and co-editor of The Republican Revolution 10 Years Later: Smaller Government or Business as Usual?

[absalom01]

heh

indeed

[lizma]

My computer is in my bedroom. Do you think the "keep the government out of my bedroom" argument will hold?

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

The shape of things to come

[John Lenin]

I don't doubt that John McCain has laready drawn up the bill. Their worst nightmare will happen, the left and the right will join fores. Bring it on idiots.

[Americanexpat]

Screw em.

[The Duke]

I escaped from communist rule in China and now I have to face a possible communist rule in America?

I'm sorry to say it's much worse than that. You see, the communists you escaped in China were at least HONEST about labeling themselves. Also, I suspect that while nasty and corrupt, the rulers in China were probably less likely to be mentally impaired.

In America, you see, from time to time we elect the inmates to run the asylum.

[Bogolyubski]

This is the inevitable result of the McCain-Feingold law that was passed thanks to the machinations of George Soros. A Federal Mullah has already ruled that the FEC must come up with a way to regulate internet sites in order to comply with this obscene law.

Here's a list of the parties responsiblle for plunging this "dagger in the heart of the 1st amendment" (quote from Congressman Billybob):

1. Congress - They passe the legislation, and it could not have happened without the votes of plenty of Republicans. (Dhimmicrats are already in Soros' pocket, so it's a given that the vast majority of them were for this)

2. President Bush - He signed the bill into law. He could have vetoed the bill, since it didn't have any real puplic support - only support from the astroturf (phony "grassroots" organizations funded by Soros, et al)). His disciples crowed about his brilliant Machiavellian "strateeeeegery" at the time, and how the courts would throw it out. Uh huh.

3. The Council of Grand Ayatollahs - sometimes known as the Supreme Court. Ayatollah O'Connor, one of the dullest of the dim bulbs there, wrote the majority opinion striking a major blow for Federal control of political speech. She received an award for her fine "constitutionalism" the follwing summer. O'Connor - the perfect example of affirmative action in action. One of Reagan's greatest blunders - appointing a brainless apparatchik of of the AZ Republican party to the SCOTUS. She'd no doubt be a fine addition to Kangaroo Courts anywhere in the world - a worthy colleague of the judicial luminaries of enlightened places like Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea and China.

There hasn't been a single piece of legislation to repeal this outrageous law introduced, only to amend the mostrosity in various ways.

[strategofr]

You can have any kind of sex you want in there. Only free speech is prohibited. Shame on you for trying to subvert an important Democratic Principle.

[Buckhead]

The Draft regulations the FEC staff came up with were even worse than what is satirized here. The full commission came out with a weaker set of regulations, but the point is that this is where the logic of campaign finance reform inevitably leads.

The anti-corruption, anti-appearance of corruption and anti-circumvention rationales supporting the law have completely swallowed the First Amendment.

The anti-circumvention rationale, in particular, can never be satisfied and can always be used to justify ever tighter regulation. It's a slippery slope with no place to stop.

[absalom01]

Maybe I'm too relaxed about this, but I'm almost certain that this proposal violates rule 308.

They can have my blog when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

[John Lenin]

Which makes getting the right judges on the Supreme Court even more important. This is not a left/right issue, problem is the politicains of both parties will be all for it. It just might bring bloggers from both sides together to mount a campaign to stop it.