Kos is Media, Federal Ruling Determines (First Amendment Still on Life Support)

The Politico ^ | Tuesday, September 4, 2007 | Kenneth P. Vogel

[kristinn]

Bill O’Reilly blasts DailyKos as a “hate site,” but according to a federal ruling released Tuesday, the popular liberal blog is as much a part of the media as Fox News when it comes to campaign finance rules.

The Federal Election Commission unanimously dismissed a complaint filed against DailyKos by a right-wing blogger who had argued it was illegally acting as a political committee by giving support and free advertising to Democratic candidates.

Adam Bonin, the lawyer who represented DailyKos, called the ruling “a big victory, but everything about the rulemaking and the precedent strongly suggested that there was no other logical outcome.”

The ruling is only a small step in the evolution of government regulation of politics on the Web, but expect it to attract attention because of the prominence of Daily Kos.

The complaint alleged that DailyKos should have to register as a political committee since its primary purpose is promoting Democrats and it raised and spent more than $1,000 pursuing that end.

The blog, which is financially sustained by advertising, attracts between 14 million and 24 million visits per month, according to sitemeter.com.

Established in 2002 by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, DailyKos was a driving force behind the development of the community of online liberal activists known as Netroots, who have taken an increasingly significant role in Democratic politics. The second annual convention it organized this summer drew most of the major Democratic candidates.

But with that prominence has come criticism.

Some conservative Democrats argue the site and its spawn are pulling the party too far left. And O’Reilly, host of Fox’s top-rated show "The O'Reilly Factor," has blasted DailyKos as a “hate site,” even comparing it to the Ku Klux Klan.

‘Glad to be target’

Filed by John Bambenek, who contributes to Blogcritics and writes his own blog, the complaint was among the first challenges to regulations enacted last year by the FEC that extended to the Internet the so-called media exemption.

It makes clear that costs incurred in publishing or broadcasting news or commentary are not contributions or expenditures, unless the media outlet is owned by a political party or candidate.

The FEC found that “DailyKos is precisely the type of activity that falls within the media exemption.”

Campaign finance experts had expected the verdict.

Kos lawyer Bonin, of the firm Cozen O'Connor, said he was glad Bambenek targeted DailyKos because “Markos is fortunate that he’s been successful enough that he was able to mount a defense to this case and fight it head on,” whereas less prominent bloggers might not have been able to do so.

“It should not be the role of the government to determine who is and who isn’t legitimate press,” Bonin said. “The Internet allows everyone to have a press without having to spend any money at all. And you can have just as much of an impact by spending no money as you could by spending thousands of dollars online.”

But Bambenek said just because DailyKos and a handful of other blogs have wide readership, it doesn’t mean the Internet is democratizing politics.

“If you look at the people who are really making waves — who are really getting attention — these are people who are already well-connected, who are making a lot of money doing what they’re doing,” he said.

“I’m not really sure a grass-roots individual like me is going to make a huge impact, except under rare circumstances.”

In another unanimous ruling, the FEC rejected allegations that Michael Grace broke the law by failing to report that he leased server space for a blog advocating the defeat of Rep. Mary Bono (R-Calif.) in 2006.

Any costs or value associated with the blog would qualify as volunteer activity and, thus, be exempt, the commission found.

[kristinn]

The fool who filed this complaint has no understanding of the First Amendment. The FEC, even though it decided in favor of the Daily Kos--and presumably sites like Free Republic--had no business even considering the complaint.

[kristinn]

You’re free to post. Woo hoo!

[traviskicks]

“The fool who filed this complaint has no understanding of the First Amendment.”

My thoughts exactly, he certainly isn’t ‘right wing’; if right wing stands for limited government and freedom of speech...

[bvw]

The article tells a big lie too. It calls the complainer a “right wing blogger”, which he, one man, a singleton instance is. Yet with that term the author smears us all, and without an offsetting note that most right wings blogs opposed this suit — it is calumny. Libel. A lie.

[sinanju]

The FEC is free to stay the hell out of this.

Besides, Kos is dragging the dems into the abyss.

[Incorrigible]

But what about the campaign “Blogola” that goes to “Unknown Jerome?”

[traviskicks]

I like Reagan’s definition:

“Today we are told we must choose between a left and right or, as others suggest, a third alternative, a kind of safe middle ground. I suggest to you there is no left or right, only an up or down. Up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism; and regardless of their humanitarian purpose those who would sacrifice freedom for security have, whether they know it or not, chosen this downward path.”

[avacado]

"Besides, Kos is dragging the dems into the abyss."

Exactly! Who would want to stop that! Many things in life are self-correcting.

[sageb1]

I still haven’t been able to get any answer to my question regarding the ACLU’s ad on Daily Kuss last week. I wanted to know if it was legal for them (the ACLU) to place an ad on a partisan political website. The ad has disappeared, but if you google daily kos aclu ad, you can see it was noticed by many. I couldn’t save the ad because it was a flash ad, but it contained the names of Reid and Pelosi and railed against the two of them.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Leftists "argue that they want to regulate 'only' money, which, they say, leaves speech unaffected. But here they argue that political speech is money, and hence must be regulated. By demanding that the speech of two talk-radio hosts be monetized and strictly limited, reformers reveal the next stage in their stealthy repeal of the First Amendment."

Talk show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur of station KVI were making contribution to a campaign by their on-air speech which constituted political advertising. At radio-advertising rates Carlson and Wilbur would be limited to about 15 minutes each of the three weeks left before the election lest they violate what a single giver (KVI) can contribute. So said Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham.

A search of www.dailykos.com found surprisingly rational and supportive comments (for the most part) about KVI's free speech rights. Nary a cuss word neither. Maybe I searched a bogus dailycuss site and not the real one.

[boop]

I thought about that KVI suit also. But didn’t they rule against the conservatives in that case? BTW, I understand the “freedom to blog” argument, but DK and DU are fundraising sites too. The Daily Kos convention was a free multimillion dollar advertisement for the Left. I think there is a big difference between Free Republic and these sites.

[neverdem]

thanks, bfl

[redpoll]

>>The fool who filed this complaint has no understanding of the First Amendment. The FEC, even though it decided in favor of the Daily Kos—and presumably sites like Free Republic—had no business even considering the complaint.<<

I was going to post something...but this is profound wisdom. Thanks.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

I like to mention it as often as I can because "in-kind political contribution" is a potential weapon against all conservative talk. Sure, the right could use it too but we'd be accused of hypocrisy -- and bigotry, racism, homophobia, nativism, jingoism, Islamophobia, anti-immigrant . . . .

Here is a John Fund column with an update. "Campaign finance regulators say speech isn't free--it's a form of 'contribution.' "

The good news is "Washington's largely liberal Supreme Court agreed that political free speech was jeopardized by the attempt to regulate media outlets under campaign finance laws. Writing in concurrence, Justice Jim Johnson noted, 'Today we are confronted with an example of abusive prosecution by several local governments. . . . This litigation was actually for the purpose of restricting or silencing political opponents.' The court took the unusual step of sending the case back to the trial court to determine the nature of any constitutional violations the prosecutors who brought the case committed and whether the Initiative 912 supporters have a right to collect attorneys' fee from the local governments who sued them."

The "Fairness Doctrine" of course was / will be used as a weapon. According to an Internet source Fred Friendly in his book appropriately entitled The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, "Fairness Doctrine" complaints were part of a "massive strategy . . . to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited, and decide it was too expensive to continue."

[Air Force Brat]

Thanks for that. Can you cite a reference? I hadn’t seen that before, and don’t remember hearing it back in the day.

[The Pack Knight]

Jefferson must be turning over in his grave at the fact that this is even an issue. This is exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment was meant to protect. To equate endorsement or criticism of a political candidate with “free advertising” and a “contribution in kind” is nothing less than an insidious attempt to marginalize one of our most fundamental rights.

[traviskicks]

a time for choosing
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/timechoosing.html

[Scarchin]

Why would anyone waste time putting an ad on Kos anyway? They’re just preaching to the choir.