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."
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.