Slashdot Mirror
FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs
* * Beatles-Beatles wrote to mention a bill entitled "The Online Freedom of Speech Act". The act, if passed, would make the Internet into a form of media subject to campaign finance laws. From the article: "Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web. The FEC, in its initial rules, had exempted the Internet. Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech. The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules." Update: 09/23 15:33 GMT by Z : Edited to correct Congress != FEC.
The summary is 180 degrees wrong on the bill, which will (as the title suggest) protect blogs: here's the actual text.
For more info, see this blog post.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
The fact that you're wrong on so many levels is hilarious:
"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."
Keyword: EXCLUDE. The internet is EXCLUDED from the Campaign Finance Reform Act.
Both Republicans and Democrats warmly embrace this system and prop it up, because without it they'd have been resigned the dustbin of history decades ago
Or, you could look at what's been happening to, say, Germany (where the entire country and its economy/public-life is swirling the toilet) and see what a train wreck you get when you have a highly fractured many-partied system. The small-scale, endless noisy squabbles result in a terribly unfocused, continually shifting landscape that never gets anything done. All you have are parties trying to obstruct or tear down one another. The recent election there is a mig muddled mess. Believe me, I've got plenty of bones to pick with behavior of both parties in the US - mostly because the very loud wack jobs on both the left and the right tend to have a disporpotionate impact on the leanings of the larger party as a whole. Of course, if the over-the-top conservatives and the loony lefties each broke away and acted as a third and fourth parties, we'd still have dems or republicans in office, but they'd be acting with what would look like even less of a mandate that typically happens now - and would thus have even less juice to get anything done without the other 75% of the population bitching about it.
When your largest parties in congress only hold a third of the seats, or the presidential candidate that got the office only really attracted 20% of the vote, you end up looking just like the big, soft, paralyzed mush that you now see in places like Germany. No wonder German investors are putting all of their money in businesses outside of that country, and that all of the population growth is from immigration (which is rewarded with lavish social services, even as the country's unemployment rate skyrockets). This is not all entirely due to their multiple political parties, but the general turbulence on that front is crippling. Just a cautionary note, that's all.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
1) Not with Diebold you can't. Using Diebold, the vote decides you.
Care to offer some proof? I've seen evidence that Diebold are a bunch of fat, incompetent bastards milking a Government contract for everything they can (hardly a unique business model) but I haven't seen any evidence of if (vote->candidate->party == democrat) { vote->candidate = bush; }. I'll grant you this "theory" of e-voting sounds like a fraud and it scares the shit out of me -- but I've also worked as an elections inspector and (in New York anyway) there are a lot of good people running elections on the state and local level and they would be horrified and outraged if it was ever discovered that a vendor was rigging votes.
Conclusion: Yes, we're aware we can vote in principle. You're apparently not aware how little effect voting actually has in practice.
And it's that kind of attitude that mixes with other factors (party line voters being my favorite pet peeve) that will destroy us more then any Congresscritter that works for lobbyists. Why don't you go out in the World and try to convince the half of your neighbors that don't bother to vote that it would be worthwhile. Explain to them the problems of our current system and convince them to vote for somebody who will change it. That's what I'm trying to do -- and I have convinced several people who never voted in their lives to register and show up at the polls. It's not easy and it will take years to effect real change -- but nothing worth doing is easy and this is too important to be apathetic about.
In any case bitching on /. is about as unproductive as watching Crossfire or Hannity and Colmes. Go out and make a difference. Start locally and work your way up the system. You'll be surprised at what an effect you can have.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Perhaps American bloggers will now need Reporters without Borders Guide to Bloggers and Cyber-Dissidents. Ironic that the land that once stood for "free speech" should need advice from a Paris-based organization on the topic.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The corporation is answerable to its customers in the same way that gov is answerable to the voters. Customers vote with their wallets.