Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Election commission takes light touch with Net regs
c|net news.com.com ^ | March 24, 2006 | By Declan McCullagh

Posted on 03/24/2006 10:00:27 PM PST by Jim Robinson

Edited on 03/24/2006 10:20:15 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]

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...

(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.com


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bloggers; cfr; congress; elections; fec; freespeech; internet; mccain; scotus; weblogs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: afnamvet

Aye, it does. And it will be a looming threat to our liberty until the Roberts Court tosses it out.


41 posted on 03/25/2006 3:15:36 AM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger

If Republican Bush had of vetoed Republican McCain's proposal (which passed the Republican House), we wouldn't even be discussing this.


42 posted on 03/25/2006 3:17:45 AM PST by Sometimes A River (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46031)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Aye, it does. And it will be a looming threat to our liberty until the Roberts Court tosses it out.

McCain & Feingold and their hired guns will be in court before the ink is dry on this reg from the FEC. Whatever comes from those two morons will be on the fast track of appeal to the USSC. Then the Roberts court can kill CFR with Article 1.

43 posted on 03/25/2006 3:24:23 AM PST by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
IF THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESNT WORK, TRY THE SECOND!
44 posted on 03/25/2006 3:43:46 AM PST by HHKrepublican_2 (www.Rogers2006.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson


Shamelessly stolen from another FReeper
45 posted on 03/25/2006 4:00:31 AM PST by Watery Tart (Feingold (CFR-WI): "[W]hy (were my) actions necessary, appropriate, or legal?" Censure whom?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

not sure


46 posted on 03/25/2006 5:04:01 AM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Normally I'm not one to agree with the Slashdot crowd, but I found these two comments on this story to be dead-on:

Aren't we lucky, they're so gracious as to allow us our constitutionally protected free speech. Like they had a choice.

But by "giving" us the right, they reserve their right to take it away in the future, if the right is "abused". So they have set a precident that may come in handy in the future, as long as those nasty courts don't interfere.

47 posted on 03/25/2006 11:12:30 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38
If Republican Bush had of vetoed Republican McCain's proposal (which passed the Republican House), we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Bush running into legislation he doesn't like and using his veto?

Guess which will happen first: Bush using his veto or me getting called up by an NBA team to be signed on as a starter. Hold on, I'll get back to you, my phone is ringing.
48 posted on 03/25/2006 11:16:50 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy

Maybe I'm giving the FEC too much credit for deviousnes, but I half suspect that they publicized the original proposals with the intention of scaling them back so we'd all feel relief and acceptance for regs that are unconstitutional and shouldn't exist. Hence the, "not as bad as we thought" reactions were planned from the get go.


49 posted on 03/25/2006 11:24:08 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

He'll use the veto when my wife says she wants me to get a 25 YO girlfriend and have her move in with us.


50 posted on 03/25/2006 11:26:30 AM PST by ChildOfThe60s
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Any government regulations of my thoughts and the free expression of them are unacceptable to me. McCain, Feingold, you and those who have signed on to what you have done here, are not fit to hold public office.


51 posted on 03/25/2006 11:33:56 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
From the article;

The FEC's internal deliberations are taking place against an unusual backdrop of congressional action. Bloggers of all political stripes, many politicians and even FEC Chairman Michael Toner have thrown their support behind a proposal in Congress that would amend current law and largely immunize the Internet from election law.

So if the chairman of the SEC doesn't want the internet to have the CFR stuff up our bums, who then?

An effort to do just that was defeated by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives last November. In a second attempt to enact the same proposal, a House panel this month approved the bill again, but the release of the FEC rules could delay it indefinitely. (A similar measure is pending in the Senate.)

Whaddaya know, congressional Democrats, what a surprise!

The three Republican commissioners--including Smith, who's now a law professor--had wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn't get even one of the three Democrats to go along with them and give them a majority, that didn't happen and the FEC began the current proceeding.

And FEC democrats block their Republican counterparts from appealing, in stark contrast to the FEC Chairman's wishes! Who woulda thunk....?

Critics of a broad exemption--including the New York Times editorial board--say that excluding all Internet communications is a recipe for corruption, giving candidates the green light to coordinate unfettered soft-money online spending with corporations, labor unions and wealthy donors

Ah, The New York Times, champion of free speech as long as it's their's and their's alone, and you have to pay a subscription to read it. Cute how they included unions in there in an attempt to appear balaced, everyone in a union knows the only way to find out how the union bosses want you to vote is on the internet, right? And those union blogs, so concerned with which party their members want their dues money spent on...

How ironic, or coincidental, really, that such starkly partisan Democrat and MSM favored regs are being pushed by a Rino who came very close to running for VP on a Democrat ticket on the most recent contest.

52 posted on 03/25/2006 11:53:10 AM PST by 4woodenboats (The GOP was created by those opposed to Southern Democrat Plantation Slavery...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Watery Tart; Jim Robinson; Grampa Dave; Interesting Times; holdonnow; Alamo-Girl; Mia T; ...


my "unpaid" banners : :

these are obviously educational "cartoons"

all are historically accurate events &/or quotes













anyone can upload these or any banners or image cartoons or photos to Photobucket, Imagecave, or another free image hosting account and put it in your personal email "Signature" option - a nice musical bgsound autostart .midi like "The Great Pretender" is always a nice pleasant refreshing touch.....



53 posted on 03/25/2006 12:16:38 PM PST by devolve ( Reload/Refresh the updated new Slick Willie graphic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: devolve

Thanks for the ping!


54 posted on 03/25/2006 2:09:42 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"I would have liked to see one kind of regulation that's not here, which is disclosure that a blogger has been paid for by a candidate or committee to take a position in an election,"

So would I.

55 posted on 03/25/2006 3:32:48 PM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amerigomag
"I would have liked to see one kind of regulation that's not here, which is disclosure that a blogger has been paid for by a candidate or committee to take a position in an election,"

"So would I."

Not me. What parts of the 1st and 4th amendments should we so freely set aside? The government has no constitutional authority to regulate free speech nor to demand disclosure of the names or personal information from citizens without due process and probable cause. Freely donating to or otherwise supporting candidates/issues of choice is not probable cause nor is it a corrupting influence on government. It's simply FREEDOM!

56 posted on 03/25/2006 3:43:40 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

I'm still not liking this too much. If McCain manages to get a bill passes making internet communication prior to elections "illegal" won't the FCC have to follow that law?

At least until the USSC slaps his WAY to big of head around?


57 posted on 03/25/2006 3:46:43 PM PST by Brytani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Even a light hand, wielding a whip, is not to be born
by free men.


58 posted on 03/25/2006 3:49:21 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brytani

Like they say, it's the camel's nose into the tent.


59 posted on 03/25/2006 3:52:25 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
And the rest of that camel is really, really butt ugly.

Signing this monstrosity was Bushes biggest mistake. It's pretty hard to forgive.

L

60 posted on 03/25/2006 3:54:20 PM PST by Lurker (I trust in God. Everyone else shows me their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson