FEC May Regulate Online Political Activity

jgarzik writes "A recent federal court ruling ordered the U.S. Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to rewrite rules that currently exempt, rather than regulate, political ads and speech on the Internet. Well, it's looking more and more likely that the FEC will not be able to avoid some amount of Internet regulation. I always thought that freedom of speech originated in part because the framers wanted to protect political speech. I guess I was being naive..."

Comments

Slashdot does it again!

[rpdillon]

If you RTFA, once again, you'll find the submitter has no idea what they're talking about:

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington ordered the FEC to rewrite 15 rules, including regulations exempting Internet ads from the 2002 campaign finance law. The law bars outside groups from coordinating television and radio advertisements with candidates.

To exempt certain types of communications runs completely afoul of this basic tenet of campaign finance law,'' Kollar- Kotelly said in a 157-page ruling. Two members of Congress filed the complaint that led to the decision.

This has entirly to do with campaign finance, and whether Internet ads are included (or excluded) from campaign finance. It has nothing to do with free speech.

Re:Slashdot does it again!

[Peyna]

This has entirly to do with campaign finance, and whether Internet ads are included (or excluded) from campaign finance. It has nothing to do with free speech

Campaign finance law is all about free speech. Another poster commented that political speech by private parties is still protected; but that speech by candidates for office is in a position to be regulated. Accepting that statement as true, if you have actually read any campaign finance law (specifically the McCain - Feingold Act passed recently), it specifically restricts the speech of private citizens, basically prohibitting them from mentioning a specific candidate in an ad, among other things.

(Not sure if the "Gun Shows Elect ..." ad is airing anywhere other than Ohio, but the ad makes a definite point of mentioning this restriction on their freedom of speech.)

To reiterate, campaign finance reform specifically restricts the freedom of speech of private citizens, and their ability to make statements through the use of public broadcasts.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, specifically the section on Electioneering Communications.

Just a reminder

[fontkick]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Abridge (v. t.) To make shorter; to shorten in duration; to lessen; to diminish; to curtail"

Someone circle the word "abridge" in the dictionary and mail it to Congress.

RTFA

[OverlordQ]

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington ordered the FEC to rewrite 15 rules, including regulations exempting Internet ads from the 2002 campaign finance law. The law bars outside groups from coordinating television and radio advertisements with candidates.

The court ruled that political advertisements on the Internet weren't exempt from a 2002 law that required them to be financed with federally regulated funds.

They're talking about regulating the ads used by the different campaigns and them working with groups like 509's.

Hardly a "OMG MY RIGHTS" issue.

Summary is incorrect

[gruntled]

Court ruling only directs FEC to examine online advertisements, not, as the summary claims, speech online. Thus, the FEC has merely been directed to monitor compliance with campaign advertising restrictions currently applicable in meatspace.

Re:Internet ads should be treated like TV and prin

[ooby]

The argument that the decisions are stifling free speech is weak if you RTFA. The court ruled that regulations on political advertising in place on TV radio and print should be applied to the internet in order to prevent organizations from spending far much more money on advertisements than their opponents. It doesn't prevent ordinary joes from blogging their hearts out about politics.

You haven't read the constution, have you?

[Sycraft-fu]

Article three, section two: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" and "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact".

Re:Internet ads should be treated like TV and prin

[ajs]

Assault? Are you insane?

Nope.

"I'm going to kill you at 5PM tomorrow" is a DEATH THREAT. Assault is when I beat you up

You're thinking of assult and battery. Assault is the threat and/or attempt, not the act of doing harm:

Law.

1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

This highlights my point about the law surrounding free speech. The on-the-street defintion of assault and of free speech are both wide misinterpretations of the laws under which our country has operated for over two centuries.

Re:BULLSHIT

[PriceIke]

From The Kerry Spot:

BRADLEY SMITH: FEC COULD EVENTUALLY REGULATE BLOGS? [10/13 03:17 PM]

Cam Edwards of NRANews.com reports in, after interviewing Bradley Smith, Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Cam states:

"When I asked him if we're eventually looking at the FEC deciding what blogs run afoul of McCain/Feingold, he said that's the direction we're heading. Not just in determining what blogs might be in violation of McCain/Feingold, but determining what blogs would be able to claim a media exemption. Scary stuff."

Great. So the only way bloggers can keep their First Amendment rights is for a president to be elected who would tear up McCain-Feingold.

Somehow I suspect John Kerry won't go to the mattresses to prevent the FEC from regulating blogs. And George W. Bush already signed McCain-Feingold in the first place.

Speech is Free, Money is Regulated

[Soong]

It's perfectly natural to have regulations to ensure a just economy; Laws against fraud, slander, libel, etc.

It's definitely a good thing to keep shadowy monied players from buying an election to keep their political machine churning.

Now the trick is to do these things without burying the system that is basically good but needs guidance.

Aside from direct person-to-person verbal (and non-verbal) communication, every form of communication requires an economic transaction to buy pen and paper, buy email or web bandwidth, print flyers or newspapers, etc. Campaign finance laws don't sweat the small stuff, so I don't think I have to worry about how much I spend on my web site (<$100/mo) that happens to express my personal political views and voting recommendations.

This may also be a case where Freedom trumps Privacy. Privacy means other people don't have to know what you do; Freedom means you're allowed to do what you do even when other people know about it. If we're going to have Freedom of speech, we might have to give up anonymity and admit where the money's coming from and how much it is. What would people think if they knew the money trail for the ad campaign from the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush? Would they be suprised that people X,Y and Z spent $bignum to put that out? Would it affect their appraisal of the message to know who the messenger is?

A lot of this stuff is already out there, to the credit of the campaign finance rules. I think it just needs to be a little more widespread and a little easier to find.

[This message paid for by slashdot. I'm Brian Olson and I endorse this message.]