Slashdot Mirror
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.
A move against bloggers would likely be stopped by the Supreme Court as a violation of free speech rights. Blog = Speech
I've read the article, and it sounds like the door is being opened to start treating links to a site as a financial contribution to a campaign. While this could be used to fight astroturf campaigns, the actual implications are staggering. This all boils down to how much a link can raise for a candidate, and assigning a dollar value to links. The secretary sending letters example is a good one, and outlines the kind of muddy waters this is marching into.
I don't see how this can work effectively. Marketing Driods have been trying to assign dollar values to links and impressions for ages to no avail.. I see this becoming a muddy mess of conflicting and inconsistent enforcement. The Internet just isn't in a state where this can be monitored and enforced effectively.
Look at how links impact search engine rankings. For example, the Google Bomb of linking "Miserable Failure" to The Shurb's biography. Would these links be considered a campaign contribution to Kerry in the last election? If so, what would their value be? Of the links on Slashdot, who would be responsible, the web site itself or the people who made the posts?
What if a BLOG gets flooded with BLOG SPAM linking to a political site, using terms like "How to Save Social Seurity" for the links? IS the BLOG admin responsible under these laws? The hosting provider? The person who made the posts or the person whose BLOG it is? None of this is addressed. All the discussion in the article seemed focused on the notion that the person whose web site has the link was the person who created the link and is authorized to create the link.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
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.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
The FEC is addressing the conflict between sponsored publications and unlimited campaign contributions. When combined, they don't give the truth a chance, and money controls elections unopposed. So the FEC, complicit in the corrupt travesty American elections have become, regulates the press - websites - rather than regulate the campaigns. Obviously the FEC must ensure that money can't overwhelm debate with press saturation, especially on the less- accountable Internet. But their regulations should control their actual jurisdiction: political campaigns, their management and finance.
--
make install -not war
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!
Earn a free iRiver
From the beginning of the opinion:
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.
http://xkcd.com/386/
"Who decides who gets funded in publicly financed campaigns? The people already in office. Unless you want everyone who decides to run to get several million dollars in advertising. At which point the elections would make the California Gubernatorial process look serious."
...because it's always gonna be between a giant douche and a turd sandwich ..."
Come on, I think we can trust our own elected officials to know what is best for us. I'm sure they will decide fairly and honestly how to regulate candidates so we will only get the best to choose from. How much choice do we really need anyway? What choice do we have now?
"