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.

Comments

And people wonder why you should be against

[hsmith]

Gov't giving out free wifi. As soon as they own the channels, they have the easy ability to censor it.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Shakrai]

As opposed to a for-profit corporation. They would never do something like that.

At least the Government is ultimately answerable the citizens. The corporation could care two shits about you unless you are a shareholder -- and even then they might still screw you (Enron).

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[hsmith]

Sigh.

Corporations won't stay in business if they don't provide a product they can sell and have people use. Your argument has no basis to it. If a corporation has no product and has no government granted monopoly (people are free to compete), they will never, EVER provide a product they cannot sell to stay in business.

I would never buy something that censored me. I am not forced to, where the government forces you at gunpoint at the threat of violence.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[hsmith]

Really? How's that connection to the internet working out for you? You might not find yourself with a choice when you consider that a lot of companies have virtual monopolies on communications products (i.e: internet access) in certain areas. Read the article I linked to in my OP and this one for some perspective. Then think about your option if that was the only ISP in town.

And do you realize, thanks to GOVERNMENT these companies have these monopolies? They grant the companies these monopolies, THAT is the reason you get limited access to them. But thankfully, I have a wide array of options to choose from. I could get FIOS, DSL, Cable, or even Dialup if I like, if there was a company "censoring" me. So your point is really moot. There are a wide variety of options to choose from. No company is censoring what I say. If one did, I would choose an alterative! Quite simple, I have no alternative to the government that is holding me.

What has our government forced you to do at gunpoint? And who do you think is really more accountable? The private company with a board of directors and shareholders or the Government that governs with the consent of the Governed who can vote their asses out of office the minute they see fit.
Please give me a list of companies that can force me to do anything? Microsoft? They can't force me to do anything, Walmart? I am not forced to go into their stores. Verizon who I have my cell phone with, they can't force me to do anything, I can use another provider if i wish. If you don't think the government forces you to do anything at gunpoint, I ask you, what happens when you don't pay your taxes? what happens if you don't follow silly traffic laws like buckling your seat belt? what happens if you jay-walk in an empty street?

You must have a strange view of society if you think the government doens't force you to do things, but corporations do.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[trurl7]

You are aware that most things you *can't* vote for?

I love this argument - ``Well, you can vote''.

1) Not with Diebold you can't. Using Diebold, the vote decides you.

2) Consider the following model: You ``elect'' a congressman. He then goes off and starts sucking political dick and voting whichever way the wind is blowing. Someone like you says: "Well, you can vote". Ok. So we vote the idiot out (probably not, but suppose). Great. Notice how the stupid law the idiot passed is still on the books? Notice how it'll take a courtcase that's appealed, re-appealed, that must get to the Supreme Court, which must decide to hear it, and only *THEN* is there a chance the Court may use the power of Judicial Review to repeal the law. That's the only forceful way. Oh yes, I hear you say, but Congress could repeal the law by itself. Yes. In theory. In practice, whichever bunch of money-grubbing assholes paid for the original law will simply bribe the next congressman you ``elect''. Excuse me. That's probably libel. I apologize. I *meant* to say, whichever bunch of money grubbing assholes paid for the original law will simply make campaign contributions, use lobbyists, and sponsor think-tanks to "re-educate" the next congressman you ``elect''.

3) Conclusion: Yes, we're aware we can vote in principle. You're apparently not aware how little effect voting actually has in practice.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Harry Coin]

Here's a short list of things that the government forces you to do at gunpoint:

• taxpaying
• zoning
• speed limits
• vehicle inspection
• vehicle registration
• protest in "free speech" zones
• building codes
• surrender your house under eminient domain

...and that's just for starters.

Every single rule and regulation instituted by our government is solely backed by local, state, and federal police and agents. They enforce their will at the barrel of a gun. If you continually decline to do precisely what the local, state, and federal government has decreed, then you will eventually find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun. Count on it.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[benjamindees]

You're neglecting that it is always, in theory, possible to compete with a corporation. The government, on the other hand...

Even Microsoft can be held accountable by a relatively small group of individuals working in their free time. There are telecom monopolies in every state, yet there are also small ISPs and you're still free to roll-your-own if you have bad service.

We've seen where rolling-your-own government gets you.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[qkslvrwolf]

Well, then start trying to convince people to
1) Stop voting for people who have been in office longer than 10 years.
2) Stop voting for anyone with ties to big buisness.
3) Stop voting for anyone who inherited their wealth.
4) Stop voting for anyone with a law background.
5) Stop voting for anyone who has family closer than 2 generations who was in politics.
6) Stop voting for republicans.
7) Stop voting for democrats.
8) Start voting for independents who fit the above criteria and whose views and record you support.

The system is changeable, but unfortunately it'll have to get a lot worse before it penetrates the thick skulls of the complacent.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Shihar]

I think you miss the parents point. Yes, the government DOES get you to do things with the threat of violence. If you don't pay your taxes, the IRS will try and confiscate your property. If you refuse to let them take your property, they will throw you in jail. If you refuse to go to jail, guns come out and they drag you to jail. A government IS that legalized use of violence. All power of the government stems from the fact that if you refuse to follow its mandates, a few guys with guns will show up at your house and do something unpleasant.

The same thing goes with getting a speeding ticket. If I am cruising down a flat empty country highway and all of a sudden a police car shows up behind me, the only thing that keeps me from utterly ignoring him enforcing a stupid law for a wide open flat highway is the fact that if I just keep driving, he is going to use violence against me. The threat of violence is what makes people obediently pull over for speeding tickets, not some sense of civil obligation.

Now, the government's use of violence isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think it is good that if someone murders my mother, guys empowered to use violence by the government (police) go after the murder. That said, it is important to realize that a government solution to any problem is inherently revolves around the authorization of violence. That is where all power of the government stems from. Once you recognize that, you should pause before advocating any government solution. Ask yourself if the problem you are trying to solve really justifies the use of the threat of violence or use of violence upon your fellow humans. Ask yourself if you truly believe that coercion using the threat of violence is worthwhile in this instance.

I am not saying that we need to abolish taxes, the federal government, or anything of that nature. I am saying that before we merrily swing the government around like a sledge hammer trying to solve problems that we consider fully what it is you propose.

Money = Expression = Speech

[dada21]

Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech. Money does not corrupt a politician; unlimited power to tax, regulate and spend is the problem.

Since campaign finance has been regulated and re-regulated, we've seen a few chilling unintended consequences:

1. Third parties are stifled.
2. Incumbents wield huge powers.
3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.

Bringing campaign finance laws online will only enforce these consequences. Our Constitution is very clear in restricting our Congress from limiting speech. "No law" means NO LAW."

Even ridiculous rules such as mandated government sponsored matching donations restrict the minority positions from being heard in public media forums. Regulating blogs will do incredible damage.

Remember that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian parties intent on wealth redistribution. Neither party restricts the other, they actually both help increase the tax base and takes care of each other's cronies.

If you want the ultimate campaign finance regulation you can do a few simple steps:

1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC
2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount
3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators.
4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.

Anyone who believes more regulations will help is truly blind to the realities of politics today. A properly restrained government is a government that can do no harm. Today's two parties are joined closely, acquiring that power through money control, a.k.a. Speech control. How you spend your money is the ultimate form of expression.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[untaken_name]

Since campaign finance has been regulated and re-regulated, we've seen a few chilling unintended
consequences:

1. Third parties are stifled.
2. Incumbents wield huge powers.
3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.

Check your premise. I seriously doubt these effects were unintended.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[stlhawkeye]

4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.

Therein lay the problem. Ballots used to not require a "getting onto." You just wrote down the name of the guy you were voting for. The problem, of course, is mis-spellings, illegible handwriting, smudged ink, etc. So we adopted a new type of ballot and a large set of rules about what it takes to be on it for each state. 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. Notice that the Republicans were the large major party to come into any prominence in America? There were some notable other third parties, like the Bull Moose and Granger business, but right around the turn of the century (i.e, 100 years ago-ish), third parties really dried up and became impotent. It's not a coincidence that the United States adopted the pre-printed balloting system for the 1892 election.

Oh no!

[elphkotm]

I like how everyone is so for campaign finance reform until it affects their little part of the world. How dare they!

Court asking for regulations?

[Jumbo Jimbo]

I was confused by one of the lines from the post, taken from the article.

a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations

I was under the impression that courts enforced the laws and regualtions written and approved by the Legislature, and wasn't in the business of ordering regulations to be made. I couldn't find anything to explain this in the article, but it's left me perplexed.
I am not totally familiar with the workings of the US legal system, but can anyone shed any more light on this for me? (Maybe it's just an inaccuracy in the article, but I'd like to know more).

Re:campaign finance = freedom of speech?

[Surt]

Just in case you're not kidding, campaign finance laws restrict the forums in which you are allowed to communicate, and the messages you are allowed to communicate in those forums.

Can vote isn't same as actually voting

[Shivetya]

Great example from just this last Tuesday. We had a SPLOST up for vote on Tuesday, it is a 1% increase in our sales tax to pay for road improvments, a new courthouse, and more jailspace.

It passed by less than 130 votes. 12% turnout. Better yet, all the belly aching by people who DIDN'T VOTE! Two of us from work who were eligible to vote in the county did, the rest did not; about 7 others.

Having the right to vote is useless unless used.