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

Skip to comments.

Censorship of web a matter of time?
AP ^ | 11/3/05

Posted on 11/03/2005 4:43:26 PM PST by Whitehawk

House Defeats Bill on Political Blogs

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3, 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(AP) Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.

The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.

The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: censorship; fec; internet
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

1 posted on 11/03/2005 4:43:26 PM PST by Whitehawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Whitehawk

Well, the solution is simple. The blogs just need to have a greeting page featuring a picture of a crucifix in urine. That way, it's protected speech and they can even apply for NEA funding as well!


2 posted on 11/03/2005 4:45:01 PM PST by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whitehawk
Uh-oh.

More details and analysis needed.

3 posted on 11/03/2005 4:45:56 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whitehawk

This is intolerable and unbearable. If we lose freedom of speech, the first amendment, we will have to excercise the second amendment. Welcome to the revolution.


4 posted on 11/03/2005 4:46:49 PM PST by hang 'em (Hey Libs:Iraq isn't Vietnam:Plame isn't Watergate:Bush isn't Nixon:Stuck in 60's=Stuck on STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whitehawk

Geez, and I thought getting banned for three days was traumatic...


5 posted on 11/03/2005 4:47:35 PM PST by Fintan (I'm planting my tagline bulbs for the spring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whitehawk; All

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514564/posts?page=88#88

Check it out ...

6 posted on 11/03/2005 4:48:25 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whitehawk

my guess is that whatever happens to pass will end up being overturned by the Supreme Court. Hell even the most recent version downed anything near this so there is some room for hope here....


7 posted on 11/03/2005 4:49:56 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Link appreciated.Not aware of this Bill.


8 posted on 11/03/2005 4:50:17 PM PST by Whitehawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Whitehawk
The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.

So now the H.R. has its own little filibuster-type foolishness? This is the first I've ever heard of this rule. Too bad it was never invoked when these campaign-finance speech rationing laws were enacted in the first place.

9 posted on 11/03/2005 4:55:51 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whitehawk

No... I predict an upswing in the utilization of off-shore servers.


10 posted on 11/03/2005 4:56:34 PM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whitehawk
Link appreciated. Not aware of this Bill.

See also S.678 and Text of S.678.

Compare with Text of H.R. 1605, still pending.

Much ado about nothing

;-)

11 posted on 11/03/2005 4:58:01 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: inquest
So now the H.R. has its own little filibuster-type foolishness? This is the first I've ever heard of this rule.

Two-thirds Votes

Under the Constitution or by House rule, a two-thirds vote is expressly required in the House on:

A two-thirds vote means two-thirds of those voting, a quorum being present, and not two-thirds of the entire membership. Deschler-Brown Ch 30 Sec. 5. Such a vote requires an affirmative vote by two-thirds of those Members actually voting; Members who indicate only that they are ``present'' are not counted in determining the two-thirds figure. Deschler-Brown Ch 30 Sec. 5.2. This method of computing a two-thirds vote has been applied to votes on passage of a constitutional amendment (5 Hinds Sec. 7027; 8 Cannon Sec. 3503), to votes on the passage of a bill over the President's veto (7 Cannon Sec. 1111), and to votes on a motion to suspend the rules (Deschler-Brown Ch 30 Sec. 5.2).

A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House
Chapter 58 - Voting

See also:
House Rules and Manual: Browse the 108th Edition
12 posted on 11/03/2005 5:01:48 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hang 'em
This is intolerable and unbearable.

Good thing the CFR bill wasn't passed by a GOP congress and signed by a GOP president - oh, wait...

13 posted on 11/03/2005 5:03:04 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

Actually the Supreme Court refused to strike down the unconscionable restrictions on free speech in the McCain-Feingold bill.

Increasingly, their position is that pornography is protected but political speech is not.

There may be some hope they will reverse themselves if Alito is confirmed, however.


14 posted on 11/03/2005 5:12:47 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I would watch, but I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch quite yet.....


15 posted on 11/03/2005 5:16:38 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Thanks for the list. Going through them one by one, it doesn't look like any of them are applicable to this bill:

Amendment to the Constitution.

We can safely rule that out in this instance.

Passage of a bill over a veto.

Two words: President Bush. 'Nuff said.

Dispensing with Calendar Wednesday.

I'm not sure what that is, exactly. Does it mean that bills passed on a Wednesday have to have a two-thirds majority? Does that mean they can wait till Thursday or Friday and pass it with just a simple majority? I'm guessing that this isn't what was at issue here.

Dispensing with the call of the Private Calendar.

Sounds like a scheduling thing to me, not anything to do with a bill.

Same-day consideration of reports from the Committee on Rules.

Again, this Committe on Rules sounds like it has to do only with the internal affairs of the House, not with actual bills coming before it.

Suspension of the rules.

Well, this might be applicable, if they were attempting to pass the bill under suspension of the rules. But why wouldn't they just follow the rules, then, and pass it the right way?

Expulsion of a Member.

Sounds good to me. Anybody got a list going?

Removal of political disabilities.

This is the one about the disability of people to serve in government who'd adhered to the enemies of the U.S., right? That is just sooo 19th century.

16 posted on 11/03/2005 5:26:27 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: inquest
See Post 11 above.

BTW, you were right about this one being 2/3rds on account of suspension of the rules.

17 posted on 11/03/2005 5:28:31 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq
I would watch, but I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch quite yet.....

When do you plan to? When this is all fully upheld? There needs to be some heads rolling, starting with those who managed to engineer this situation such that it required 2/3 of the House to approve this bill. That's totally unacceptable.

18 posted on 11/03/2005 5:29:56 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: inquest
When do you plan to?

When it passes the Senate.

When this is all fully upheld?

If you think this will get past the *NEW* Supreme Court, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for ya
19 posted on 11/03/2005 5:32:07 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Compare with Text of H.R. 1605, still pending.

Oh...

Well, I always appreciate a good fire drill anyway ;-)

20 posted on 11/03/2005 5:32:32 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 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