FEC- RULES AND EXPLANATION AND JUSTIFICATION FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS

FEC pdf ^ | 3/24/06 | FEC

[defenderSD]

McCain has stirred up a hornets' nest...lol.

[Mo1]

Thanks for you input!

[unixfox]

You can be assured if they are wanting to change the "rules", they are up to no good. Or...they are looking for a new revenue source.

I'm always wary of these things.

[Caramelgal]

I don’t not have a strong understanding of Constitutional law, but if a court or Federal agency like the FEC or FCC made a ruling, limiting free speech on the internet based on it’s understanding of the McCain-Feingold CFR act or if Congress expanded the act and subsequently a suit was filed and made it’s way to the SCOTUS: could that open up the possibility of an overturn of the McCain-Feingold CFR act in it’s entirety by the SCOTUS?

[defenderSD]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I think the answer to your question is YES.

[Caramelgal]

Then perhaps this is not such a bad thing after all if it opens up the un-Constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold CFR act?

[NeoCaveman]

Then perhaps this is not such a bad thing after all if it opens up the un-Constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold CFR act?

Lawsuits are working there way through the court system to do just that. Within the next year or two SCOTUS will have an opportuity to reverse or ammend their last ruling on McCain-Feingold aka BCFRA

[Gondring]

ping

[Syncro]

OF COURSE that IS an issue here. They should just leave the www alone.

"I don't even want the blogger exemption to pass...It's all or nothing"

The FEC should have NO power over the internet at all.

[Madame Dufarge]

Thanks for posting.

Bookmarked.

[Petronski]

The FEC should have NO power over the internet at all.

Absolutely, but this rulemaking had no authority to accomplish that. The starting point for that change is with Congress and the Courts.

[Rebelbase]

Tagline change

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Draft

communications over the Internet are not as “invasive” as communications made through
traditional media.

See Reno, 521 U.S. at 869. For example, a television viewer who
tunes in to watch a particular show presumably seeks the content provided in that show,
but is also subjected to “invasive” commercial advertising messages that he or she did not
seek. The advertiser pays a premium to bring its message to an audience precisely
because the audience would not have chosen to seek out the message otherwise. In
contrast, a website’s information is seen only by those who choose to visit and view it.
During 2005, an estimated 204 million people in the United States used the
Internet

In the first half of 2005, an estimated 67 percent of the adult American
population used the Internet.8 At the end of 2004, 87 percent of American teens (ages 12-
17, representing the next generation of voters) were using the Internet.9 On average, 70
million American adults logged onto the Internet on a daily basis.

A growing segment of the American population uses the Internet as a supplement
to, or as a replacement for, more traditional sources of information and entertainment,
such as newspapers, magazines, television, and radio. By mid-2004, 92 million
Americans reported obtaining news from the Internet


Draft

Commissioners Wold and Mason in MUR 4946 (CBS News, Fox Network News, CNBC
News, MSNBC News, CNN and ABC News) (“politically biased reporting and
commentary remain within the ‘legitimate press function.’”). See also Statement of
Reasons by Commissioner Weintraub in MURs 5540, 5545, 5562, and 5570 (CBS,
Kerry/Edwards 2004, Inc. and Sinclair Broadcasting) at 2 (“It is not the role of the
Federal Election Commission to determine whether a news story issued by a press entity
is legitimate, responsible, or verified…Whether particular broadcasts were fair, balanced,
or accurate is irrelevant given the applicability of the press exemption.”).
Commissioners have also concluded that the presence or absence of alleged
coordination between a press entity and a candidate or political party is irrelevant to
determining whether the Act’s press exemption applies. See, e.g., Statement of Reasons
of Commissioners Toner, Mason and Smith in MURs 5540 and 5545 (CBS,
Kerry/Edwards 2004)(“Allegations of coordination are of no import when applying the
press exemption. What a press entity says in broadcasts, news stories and editorials is
absolutely protected under the press exemption, regardless of whether any activities
occurred that might otherwise constitute coordination under Commission regulations.”);
Statement of Reasons of Commissioner Weintraub in MURs 5540, 5545, 5562, and 5570
(CBS, Kerry/Edwards 2004, Sinclair Broadcasting) (“I believe it is important to
emphasize that the press exemption shields press entities from investigations into alleged
coordination.”)

More recently, the Commission has determined that the media exemption applied
to a blogger that covered and carried news stories, commentaries, or editorials. In
Advisory Opinion 2005-16, the Commission analyzed the Internet activity of Fired Up!

LLC (“Fired Up”), an entity that maintained a network of Internet websites but had no
offline media presence. The Commission found that a primary function of Fired Up’s
websites was to provide news and information to readers through commentary on, quotes
from, summaries of, and hyperlinks to news articles appearing on other entities’ websites
and Fired Up’s original reporting. The Commission viewed the posting of reader
comments to the website as similar to letters to the editor and noted that FiredUp retained
editorial control over the content displayed on its websites.

The Commission concluded
that the activities of Fired Up’s websites were protected by the media exemption.
The Commission has decided not to change its rules regarding the media
exemption so as to exempt all blogging activity from the definitions of “contribution” and
“expenditure.”

The Commission believes that such an exemption for one technology-specific
category would be both too broad and too narrow: it would apply equally to
blogging activity “that [is] not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the
public” and communications that are not news stories, commentary or editorials within
the meaning of the media exemption;60 at the same time, it would overlook other forms of

Internet communication, such as publishing websites in other formats or podcasting, that
are equally deserving of consideration under the media exemption. Moreover, given
that methods of communicating over the Internet “are constantly evolving and difficult to categorize precisely,”

Yea FIRED UP !