Replies

...and what does it say sport?

Thanks. My wife thinks so!

I don't know whether I can quote from the site or not, but I'll give a condensed version. Here's the nub: The story suggested that Thompson’s “testing the waters” Web site amounted to a “stealth campaign” in cyberspace, and that existing election laws didn’t cover such activities. Then there came a curious little factoid sixteen paragraphs in:

The [Federal Election Commission]’s regulations say a “testing-the-waters candidate” may not conduct campaign-type activities “in close proximity to the election or over a protracted period of time.” Mr. Biersack said the agency would need to have a complaint to act.

So they would “need to have a complaint to act,” eh? I remember reading that article last week and wondering how much time it would take for that shoe to drop, since the Times dangled it in front of Thompson foes so darn enticingly. Enter blogger Lane Hudson – you might remember him from such Internet-related stories as Mark Foley’s sexual instant messages and e-mails to a page – who, according to the Associated Press, has decided he’ll be the one to file the complaint and question Thompson’s tactic.

First, it's up to the FEC to determine whether a complaint is actionable. Just because a complaint is filed, there is no automatic obligation to act.

Second, it hedges on what is considered "campaign type activities". We certainly are NOT in "close proximity to the election", and the FEC would have to determine what "a protracted period of time" is. A week? A month? A Quarter? A year? Again, the FEC will not likely act unless it believes such activities were involved, and break the guidelines. Just because someone files a complaint is not sufficient evidence of said activity.

The balance of the CBS blogspot addresses how the NYT came up with an article, and how the blogger jumped on it within days. Nothing here to be concerned with.

You are assuming much. I am not. Now, let's get on with life, shall we?