Election commission takes light touch with Net regs

c|net news.com.com ^ | March 24, 2006 | By Declan McCullagh

[Jim Robinson]

The Internet's freewheeling days as a place exempt from the heavy hand of federal election laws are about to end.

Late Friday, the Federal Election Commission released a 96-page volume of Internet regulations that have been anticipated for more than a year and represent the government's most extensive foray yet into describing how bloggers and Web sites must abide by election law restrictions.

The rules (click here for PDF) say that paid Web advertising, including banner ads and sponsored links on search engines, will be regulated like political advertising in other types of media. They also say bloggers can enjoy the freedoms of traditional news organizations when endorsing a candidate or engaging in political speech.

If the regulations are approved by the FEC at its meeting on Monday, they will represent a substantial change from a far more aggressive version of the regulations seen by CNET News.com last year. An outcry from bloggers and even members of Congress appears to have caused FEC lawyers--who are under court order to regulate the Internet--to rethink the rules and adopt a more laissez-faire approach.

Though not all the implications of the 96-page document were immediately clear, one prominent advocate of Internet free speech said the rules are preferable over what could have happened.

"They've tried to take a light hand, and it looks like they might have succeeded," Brad Smith, a former FEC chairman who teaches law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, said in a telephone interview. Smith said, though, that he was not able to review the document in detail.

Also exempted from the sweep of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act--better known as the McCain-Feingold law--are e-mail messages sent to 500 or fewer people, posting a video unless it's a paid advertisement, and online activities done by volunteers even if the actions are undertaken without the knowledge of the campaign...

[ntnychik]

FEC rules ping

[ccmay]

spank, impeach, recall and de-fund a bunch of black-robed Gramsci goons.

Horse whips, tar, and feathers, say I.

-ccm

[Quix]

I still think we need to keep the pressure on to pass the 1606 pending bill to help enshrine freedom of speech on the net into law.

I don't trust regs or especially regulators any further than I could throw Shrillery's power mongering evil ego or Billdo's harem.

I say--keep the pressure on the politicos until remedy-ing law(s) are passed by both houses.

It's too easy to revise a reg overnight in a flash. Then it would be catchup with both hands tied behind our backs.

[Lancey Howard]

....and online activities done by volunteers even if the actions are undertaken without the knowledge of the campaign...

Doesn't that only apply to specific, named candidates?

[TChris]

The camel's nose is now in the tent.

[Lancey Howard]

It's too easy to revise a reg overnight in a flash.

And then, like just recently, there could be another lawsuit filed by scumbags like Shays, Meehan, McCain, and Feingold (you remember Feingold - - he's the guy who's all upset that terrorists' rights are being trampled by Bush) and some unqualified judge rules in their favor.

[dandelion]

Hope-I-understand-this-all-better-after-a-cup-of-coffee-BUMP...

[Quix]

For treasonously sure!

May God have mercy on their souls but discipline their bodies and minds relentlessly and thoroughly. Sock it to em, Lord! and Please, get them out of public life wholesale and forever.

[advance_copy]

The First Amendment precludes the FEC from regulating free speech no matter whether they use a "light touch" or not. Congress, pass the Online Freedom of Speech Act, now!

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks for the ping.

[weegee]

That Clinton-Gore could accept election money from the Chinese Communist government and only have to "give it back" (after the election, like a loan), is ridiculous. The FEC is inefFECtive.

[conservative in nyc]

The FEC regulations are horsesh*t.

The FEC regulations aren't horsesh*t. McCain-Feingold and the Federal Election Campaign Act are horsesh*t. You can't blame the FEC for doing something an act of Congress, signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court told it to do, especially when another court told them they got it wrong the first time.

[Treader]

It's better this fight comes now, than later.

[maryz]

LOL! What a great idea! Wonder why no one ever thought of it before . . . Maybe we could have another one protecting private property . . .

[CDHart]

"Time for the PEOPLE to assert our God-Given power and spank, impeach, recall and de-fund a bunch of black-robed Gramsci goons."

Way past time, IMO. But I've often thought that if all of us spent even 1/2 the time that we spend online communicating with our so-called representatives, it might be time better spent.

Carolyn

[Paul C. Jesup]

CDHart: Way past time, IMO. But I've often thought that if all of us spent even 1/2 the time that we spend online communicating with our so-called representatives, it might be time better spent.

That is because internet blogs, chatrooms and forums are valves to the political pressure cooker we call U.S. politics.

The only way you would have a violent revolt would be if the internet was shutdown. That's was the FEC, press and politicians don't understand.

[Paul C. Jesup]

are valves = are release valves

[CDHart]

You're right. Maybe that's why the FEC is treading lightly on the CFR thing.

Carolyn

[Watery Tart]

The rules... say that paid Web advertising, including banner ads...

No more banner ads, eh? Well I'd better post 'em before they come for me...

---

Now, about this "paid web advertising" angle.... does it pay much to do this?

[afnamvet]

The CFR still stands and still is an outright attack on our right to free speech.