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

Free Speech

[modular_forms_boy]

A move against bloggers would likely be stopped by the Supreme Court as a violation of free speech rights. Blog = Speech

Re:I don't think so

[TGK]

Bad example, but your point is well taken. A better way to say it might be that the candidate still has to RUN for office in the US. So even if they spam from an offshore account, the FEC can still hold them accountable.

That said, I have a problem with this. First off, SPAM is known to generate ill will. When you're doing it for commercial gain it's a viable (if evil) strategem. When you're trying to get people to like you it's something alltogether.

SPAM isn't a problem here. Personaly I'd like candidates not to call me at home, but that's a different issue.

The FEC's role is to make sure elections are fair. To that end they regulate campaign finance contributions etc. Applying these rules to the itnernet seems rather shortsighted. The internet allows a grass roots mobilization on a grand scale (which is what the FEC should b encouraging). There is almost no marginal cost associated with internet campaigning and as a consequence, the internet promises to eliminate much of the money driven corruption in politics.

This move strikes me as suspect. The FEC has an inherent bias against small groups and third parties. Internet campaigning as shown itself to be a powerfull tool in the hands of non-central ideologies and third parties. This seems to be yet another way to protect the two party system. This, along with the administration of presidential debates, is a symptom of the decline of democracy in the United States.

This isn't a new precedent

[boohiss]

Everyone's favorite congressman, John McCain, and his buddy Feingold already got that awful Campaign Finance "Reform" law passed, which effectively abridges free speech.

But, that's only supposed to affect rich lobbyists and media conglomerates! It can't possibly apply to us as well!

Re:First Amendment? Still mean anything?

[Eslyjah]

Yes. Now would be a good time to (re-)read Scalia's dissent in McConnell v. FEC.

From the beginning of the opinion:

This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), and sexually explicit cable programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national-party use of "soft" money to fund "issue ads" that incumbents find so offensive.

Re:I don't think so

[untaken_name]

Democracy is coming to the US, I fear, but it isn't here yet. What the GP meant, I believe, is the decline of the constitutional republic in the United States. Democracy = mob rule != the US's system of government. Of course, that word has been thrown around so much in connection with the US that I don't blame the GP for making that mistake. It's an extremely common one that even elected officials either play up or fall victim to. We've been an oligarchy in effect for a while now, at least in my opinion, but the official form of government is constitutional republic.