FEC Extending Election Regulation to the Internet

m_d_j_00 writes "Cnet has a story about Federal Election Commission plans to extend election laws to the Internet." From the article: "In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. 'The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines' the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote." This may include regulation of bloggers and mailing lists linking to or forwarding campaign website URLs.

Comments

Re:I don't think so

[cmowire]

This is the FEC, not the FCC.

Which means that if a candidate uses a Dutch server to spam people, they can still fine him or force him to drop out of the race. Remember, if an American goes to Thailand and has sex with a 10 year old hooker, they can still face charges upon return to the states. Same deal.

Re:What an interesting history

[kernelblaha]

bad link. you meant this

Re:Political Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right about what the First Amendment was *intended* to protect and what it *should* protect. But you're wrong about what the courts have permitted.

The Supreme Court has already upheld one part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. A federal judge has said the second part (which is requiring the FEC to take action) is also constitutional. Obviously the federal judiciary doesn't agree with you.

Re:I don't think so

[dhbiker]

whoha it seems I've touched a nerve there! how is linking to a site for the sake of interest illegal and how is that going to influence your politics?

and for what it's worth the US economy is not the strongest in the world

Re:I don't think so

[tomhudson]

Yes, they can. The US is one of the few countries that applies its own laws to its own people even when they're in a foreign country.

Or have you forgotten the 1976 Lockheed bribery scandal?

An example of utilitarian, or consequentialist, thinking is the famous Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and All Nippon Airways (ANA) bribery scandal of the 1970s. Lockheed paid $12.5 million in "commissions" or "fees" to ANA and Japanese government officials to obtain the sale of 21 Tristar aircraft. Carl Kochian, Lockheed president at the time, defended his actions by invoking the consequences. For example, the $12.5 million was a negligible cost to Lockheed and the revenue dollars were desperately needed to stabilize Lockheed's shaky financial situation. Kochian argued that he saved thousands of jobs for Lockheed workers and thousands of dollars for Lockheed stockholders.

Here's an interesting nuance to consider: Bribery was common and expected in Japan in the '70s. Kochian didn't offer the bribe; he was asked to pay it. Does that make his actions any more justifiable? If Lockheed didn't pay the bribe, some other aircraft company probably would. Yet, once you pay a bribe, you're trapped, as Kochian soon recognized. (For more on this case, read Ethics and the Conduct of Business.)

Soon after the Lockheed bribery scandal broke, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was put into place, prohibiting bribery of foreign government officials by American companies.

So, while it might be legal to give or receive a bribe in another country, US citizens cannot do either, even when abroad.

Same thing for child sex, etc.

If my memory serves me right..... FEC roles....

[AKosygin]

In every election, regardless of the level, the Federal Elections Commission must "certify" it in the very end in order to comply with a clause in the Constitution that every [subordinate] government [in the Union] must be a republican (note lower case "r") govornment.

If the FEC do not certify it, then that means the Federal Government refused to recognize those elected and thus that particular government (state, city, county, etc.) has lost its powers and federal funding. So, no, it does affect State and other local government to at least some degree.

Re:I don't think so

[swv3752]

Actrually, the FEC wanted to be hands off, but the Judge said no, you have to regulate it as well. Of course this was not only in the TFA but in the article summary so...

The problem that they are really worried about is if I post a link to say Bush's campaign site in a post to Slashdot, how much have I contributed to his campaign. More importantly, is it from my contribution or from OSDN? If from OSDN then they are a corp and not allowed so how much should they get fined. Maybe Slashdot would get an exemption as they are the Press. But what about all the bloggers and forums and what not.

Re:This isn't a new precedent

[bigpat]

"True. Oh, wait, was that a failed attempt at sarcasm? Campaign Finance Reform puts a cap on individual contributions from one company or one person. Running a blog will fall well below that cap."

I call bullshit. If someone spends just $250 in a calendar year on their website (inlcuding at least a portion of the cost of the computer, connection, hosting, software, etc) and write something that is for or against a candidate then they have to fill out this form: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm5.pdf
And they will have to fill it out every 3 months if they continue to spend any amount of money on their website.

$250 is not a lot of money to spend on a website in a year, especially to start. So, this certainly would apply to anyone who sets up a website where the content supports or opposes a candidate. This has already and will have a great chilling effect on political discussion in this country.

This is regulating the content of speech, clear and simple. Campaign finance reform is corrupt.

Re:I don't think so

[cheezedawg]

The US violated international law by invading and occupying Iraq, and you want to talk about doing things by the (that is, your) book?

International law does not mean "everything UnrefinedLayman agrees with." There was nothing "illegal" about our invasion of Iraq. The UN Security Council gave explicit authorization in resolution 678 to use military force to enforce the cease-fire demands of resolution 687. This authorization was confirmed over a dozen times in the decade that followed, including resolution 1441 that gave Iraq one final chance to comply.