House Defeats Bill on Political Blogs

Guardian Unlimited ^ | Thursday November 3, 2005 | JIM ABRAMS

[livesbygrace]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.

The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.

The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited ``soft money'' contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.

``This is a major unraveling of the law,'' Meehan said. At a time when Washington is again being tainted by scandal, including the CIA leak case, ``it opens up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process.''

[livesbygrace]

Here it comes...

[flashbunny]

I guess my blog will now become a newspaper....published yearly with updates available online

[Izzy Dunne]

the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.

I haven't kept up with this - why is there a 2/3 requirement?

[Mayflower Sister]

This is an outrage. What are they going to do - throw us all in jail???

[sittnick]

. . . court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech . . . on the Internet.

That is chilling.

[AmericaUnite]

Bump

[infidel29]

"campaign finance".... thanks again Sen. McCainus

[SmithL]

What 1st Amendment?

[EBH]

one day could be fined for improperly linking to a campaign Web site, or merely forwarding a candidate's press release to an e-mail list.''

[livesbygrace]

"...two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments."

I guess this has something to do with it.. Maybe someone else can expand on it is greater detail.

[InterceptPoint]

From the article:

the vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.

From the Constitution:

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.

Fortunately we have a Supreme Court that will stop this in it's tracks (ROFL).

[livesbygrace]

is=in

[upchuck]

Notice to ALL politicians of all political persuasions:

Keep your grubby, greedy mitts off
my Internet!

[Leroy S. Mort]

The House voted 225-182 FOR a bill that would have EXCLUDED blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission.

Yeah I'm confused too. Why did this need 2/3d's to pass?

[Republican Wildcat]

under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.

[bvw]

Once freedom is tasted, it is not easy to give up.

[muawiyah]

Seems to me we should all be very concerned when the House of Representatives is swept by Fascist emotionalism.

Is that Hastert guy going senile or what?

[saganite]

The political class continues to pursue it's incumbent protection plan at the expense of debate and the free flow of information. Freedom of speech is reduced to the right to copulate in public in Oregon.

[labette]

"What are they going to do - throw us all in jail???"

I figure that's the general idea.

[Blennos]

campaign finance".... thanks again Sen. McCainus

Thank George Bush as well. He signed the bill into law.