Slashdot Mirror
Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House
Fox Cutter writes "Today in the House of Representatives, Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) introduced a companion piece of legislation to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's bill (S.678) to exclude the Internet from the definition of 'public communication' in the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002." If the bill passes, this would free the internet from FEC regulation.
Well, I'll be darned. After squirming over action items like "supporting the President in the War on Terror" and "Cracking Down on Indecency", I was concerned. We got a letter recently with a checklist of priorites, which included several of the buzzwords being bandied around by the radical right ever since they disguised fear and hate as "Moral Values" to win the 2004 elections.
And then, Jeb Hensarling (R - Athens) goes and opens the door to "these newcomers to our political process [...] bloggers and online activists." (from TFA). And in a show of rare bipartisanship (on an issue not involving oil or war), he's partnering with a leading Democratic Senator. And some of the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation will be third-party bloggers, Greens, Libertarians, and all the rest.
It's as if he has a sense of civic duty. Maybe it's possible, even today. After all, there are an awful lot of "R"s in Texas who were "D"s in a previous life.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
If the Internet does not constitute 'public communication,' what possibly can?
Click here to donate through my PayPal Account!
Please select the amount:
[ ] $50,000
[ ] $150,000
[ ] $250,000
[ ] Supreme Court Seat
With the internet, I can see money being raised in foriegn countries, then having websites promoting candidates unregulated on the internet. So what if there is a $1,000 maximum on individuals contributing to candidates. Who is going to stop China from helping Clinton get elected http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1smXmfU5JwEJ: www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000 /000/001/990axijx.asp+gore+china+fundraising+scand al&hl=en&ie=UTF-8.
Everyone knows that money elects people, not idea's. Campaigns hire people to run advertising. They have buzz words, speeches filled with little phrases perfect for a 10 second soundbyte on the news. They make more negative attack ads than advertising about ideas. And often those negative attacks can be ridiculous lies, but they work.
Right now, China can't buy commercial space on TV for promoting a candidate in a USA election. Who is to say they won't do just that with the internet? Or Isreal. Who is to say that Isreal won't secretly fund a candidate, then in return have weapons secrets leaked to them?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
It was well known that M$ has purchased politicians. Remember when Clinton was in office, he ordered the department of justice to start anti-trust investigations against Microsoft. As soon as Bush was elected, he ordered Ashcroft to end those investigations.
One anti-trust law. Two administrations. Shouldn't the law be applied the same? Or did money get into the decisions?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
You are absolutely right. Limits on how much money can be contributed to a person's campaign is something we desperately need. Personally, I don't think ANY money should be able to be given to politicians. Every candidate running for a particular office should be allotted an equal amount of money that would be gathered from the public, most likely via taxes. This is something that I actually wouldn't mind paying taxes for. At least then we might get a somewhat fair election. Oh, and they should all get equal time on any sort of public debate.
Why? So only the Perot's who are already super rich can run?
I guess what I was suggesting would include the person running themselves. Basically what I meant was that they shouldn't be able to use ANY money except what was given to them for their campaign with each candidate being given the same amount.
Only if these taxes were voluntary. Why should a Green be forced to give money to the Buchanan campaign and vice-versa? That violates basic political rights. Let each person choose.
How many of the existing taxes are voluntary? I agree that they should be but that just isn't the case currently. I certainly don't approve of my money being used to build bombs. Do you?
"Oh, and they should all get equal time on any sort of public debate."
That should be left entirely up to the organization holding the debate.
Well then we need a government appointed organization to hold _fair_ debates where each candidate gets a chance to participate. This two party BS is ridiculous and insulting.
Another politician that thinks we need to reduce campaign regulation.
Wonder if he believes in freedom of speech for non-pols? Was he around when the votes came up for CDA and son-of? How did he vote?
"This two party BS is ridiculous and insulting."
Then form a better party.
And who decides what a "better party" is? We already have plenty of other parties but do any of them actually stand a chance in hell of winning? Not last time I checked. That was my point about changing how candidates get their funding. I admit it probably wouldn't ever work but we certainly need to do _something_ to change the current situation. Having other parties doesn't do a whole lot of good if they don't have any way of getting their message out to the public.
I'm not trying to flame you here, but this isn't a Republican coming up with the bill. Harry Reid is the senate minority leader (and thus a Democrat). This republican is introducing a bill which is a companion to his, so that they could (theoretically) both be passed and then go to a conference committee, before going back up for a vote and then on to the president for signing or vetoing.
Anyway, it seems to be more bipartisan than soley Republican or Democrat. If someone wanted to nitpick they could point out that Harry Reid's bill was introduced almost a month ago (March 17, 2005), but I don't think that is appropriate here - since it would just start a partisan flame war. (Hoping to preempt any responses with that or flames later on).
There is a reason we have an FEC and why it regulates campaigning. Exempting an entire communications medium may end up neutering the FEC entirely and seems unreasonable.
By analogy, let's say there was a lot of political activism on amateur radio. Great, your Congressman says: we should exempt all radio-based communications from FEC regulation. Oops--all of a sudden, TV and commercial radio are off-limits to FEC regulation.
I don't see why the Internet needs any special legislation here. Paid election-related activities on the Internet should be regulated the same way they are regulated in any other medium. And, yes, that may mean "registering a blog" if that blog was created for a PR firm that is getting paid millions of dollars for its work; astroturfing is, in some sense, worse than other kinds of commercial advertising.
Unpaid, personal activities should be unregulated on the Internet, and they should be unregulated anywhere else.
People inside the beltway are far more likely to work for congressmen than people in the rest of the US. This concentration of people who have to know politics in detail is what allows you to have those conversations. Those same people would be unable to have a in depth conversation on the merits of various corn varieties. Its what you know.
Of course once you have a critical mass of people who know the subject onlookers who otherwise won't have to care become sucked in because the only way to have a conversation with most people is to talk about politics in detail. People have the same problem with me, unless the topic is computer programing I can't hold a conversation. I know politics (Not to the level you do), but I don't know how to hold a conversation about it.
Here's free speech, and the freedom to assemble.
Here's free speech and $1000 to tide you over (a legal personal campaign contribution).
Which speaks louder? This is what happens when political money gets into the Internet.
Yes, it's ostensibly one person, one vote, but one person or organization or funds transfer can shout far beyond a single voice.
The Liberty Amendments:
1) No campaign may accept contributions from outside of the political district represented, and non-personal transactions of any kind must be limited to organizations principally residing within that district
2) No contribution from any individual or organization in aggregate may exceed $100. No campaign for any elected office shall exceed $100,000 more than the salary paid to the elected office. All excess monies not directly used for campaign expenses shall be donated to the United States Treasury within one month after the election for that office. No funds raised may be used to pay for any family expenses other than personal travel, including actual cartage, actual hotel with reasonable per diem expenses, and reasonable food.
3) No political party or organization may transfer its funds to a specific candidate for elective office.
4) Monies spent to publically publish information about an issue or campaign shall be considered a contribution to that issue or campaign, and are subject to the limitations in Amendment One.
5) No foreign entity of any kind shall be allowed to make a contribution of monies, or materials to any elected office or political party or organization advancing the cause of an election or publically-voted issue.
6) Defamation of a political candidate during a political campaign will be cause for any contested election to be held again until such defamation ceases. Defamation is constituted by the publically published utterance of material known to be false, or the subsequent inability to publically publish retraction of publically disproven allegations about a candidate's character, morals, or public record.
Maybe we should try these.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Um, do you know how much money it takes to set up and maintain a campaign webpage? About $100/mo for colo fees, tops, plus the donated time of a web jockey who would love to get "worked for X campaign" on his resume. How is this going to exclude third parties and everyone but the "very, very rich or those who are funded by corporations"? The Internet is an extraordinarily flat playing field. I could run an Internet campaign with the change I found in my couch today.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
What part of the Constitution grants the federal government any power whatsoever over the airwaves? According to the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
And no, the interstate commerce clause *cannot* be used to justify whatever federal power you have a hard-on for, despite historical precedent. Amendments trump original clauses, by definition.
Max
"
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I find it funny that only after Ross Perot stirred the pot in 1992 did we see movement on campaign finance. To the effect that the Party Duopoly has conspired to carve up the country along party lines to the exclusion of real debate about the future of this country. Ross Perot was talking about the budget and all the two parties wanted to talk about was how to spend the scraps from the table. It took a Billionaire to threaten the two party's hold on power and begin a non academic discussion on the dangers that this country faces.
Everywhere we look we face oppressive debt which is being thrust upon us. Freedom isn't based on a piece of paper, but on our ability to go out and stand on our own feet. This country needs to start working towards freedom again and not for the usury of a political elite.
Otherwise we are going to need our own land reform, debt forgiveness and revolution if our corrupt politicians keep seeking the same illusive power over others.
Remember that EM spectrum use is subject to INTERNATIONAL TREATY. The EM spectrum is not bounded by state or national borders: a transmission in one juristiction can be received by someone in another, and interference on the same frequency could easily happen over political borders. Furthermore, there are treaties governing how the EM spectrum is used in international waters for (EG for navigation & communication).
Remember that making international treaties is a power explicitly prohibited to the States (Article I section 10), and as such is the sole pervue of the Federal government under the 10th amendment. The power to enforce the terms of international treaties is clearly granted to Congress under the "elastic" clause of Article I section 8: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Even if you could argue that the Commerce and Treaty clauses did not apply, the federal courts would still have jurisdiction (Article III section 2) in any interstate case regarding EM spectrum use, again putting the issue squarely in the hands of the federal government.
As much as I'd like to use the 10th amendment to limit the powers of the federal government, on this issue I have to conclude that the Constitution prohibits the STATES from regulating the use of the EM spectrum.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?