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.
Why wouldn't political bloggers just move their servers overseas? I doubt some offshore data center would really care if you're running a political blog, as long as they get paid. Seems ridiculous and unenforceable. Then again, we ARE talking about the US Congress.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Funny how democrates were the ones that wanted campaign finance reform in the first place (when it suited them).
Watch Congress carefully on this one. Any congressmember who votes to limit free speech, online or anywhere else, must be fired immediately. Convicted of violating their oath to protect the Constitution.
US Constitution, First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Of course, they're all capable of it: they've shuffled off to work their fat jobs in the Capitol for years while police have run unconstitutional "free speech zones" which exclude free speech and peaceable assemblies. When your Representative or Senator votes for this bill, demand their head on a platter. It might be the last "petition for a redress of grievances" you'll get to make.
--
make install -not war
Why bother?
Not to say we don't need some way to keep our political twits in check, but the FEC and the US government in general can't do a damned thing if a Canadian blogger vocally prefers candidate X instead of candidate Y in an upcoming US election.
Now, I think most of the world understands what a joke our political system has become, and doesn't really care whether Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche wins. But all the happy paid party-shills can make use of that to trivially circumvent any relevant laws. When it comes to broadcast media, Americans don't tend to watch any foreign channels, so the existing rules more-or-less work. But on the internet, people regularly view material from all over the world, usually without even knowning exactly where in the world it comes from ("Oh, gee, they spell things oddly here, must live in England... Or Australia... Or one of those other funny little micronations that I couldn't find on a map").
We don't need more feel-good laws - We need to make holding public office less of a free-for-all for the biggest lowlifes our society can produce.
Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech.
Money = speech - Interesting perspective.
It would mean that "I persuade a congressman to vote for a law" and "I pay a congressman to vote for a law" is the same thing. Well if you want to live in a society like that I guess it's fine.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
What about slander and libel laws???
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
Granted that controlling political spending is a two-sided philosophical issue. But...
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
I presume you don't live in the USA, since its fairly apparent that the Government there arn't us, nor are they accountable to the people.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
FINANCE reform. how does FINANCE mean speech on the internet?
limiting the money that can be given by one group is a good thing because that means that everyone's voice can be heard. My 2 grand is as good as the Walmart CEO's 2 grand. and now that he can not give billions away to the RNC and can not monopolize tv time, my voice is almost as strong as his (he still gets access to the top guys one on one)
Saying a blog cannot post something or a forum user cannot post something, or a forum cannot post a discussion because it is political speech in a medium defined as being media is as bad as the speech police coming and arresting me on teh street because I am passing out "vote for democrat X".
you however do not seem to care because you are an "anything that makes a democrat mad is good" kind of republican.
I hope you are happy when the fascism comes and bites you on the ass.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
What we need to do is to fine political candidates who lie, and the media that reports these lies without verification.
The ideal solution would be to have the media jump on them, but as the media is a bunch of lazy fuckers who would reprint slander about the Pope having sex with a goat if someone anonymously faxed it in, that seems unlikely to happen, and we need to start punishing them too.
Remember, slander is an already allowed restriction on free speech.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Forgive my ignorance of US law relating to freedom of speech, but why should you need a law that gives you what you already have (according to the constitution)?
I'll give a brief example of an "alternative" way of relating money to politics and campaigns:
A system where any donation from any person or business to anyone even remotely related to a political party would be considered corruption and therefore illegal. No lobbying, no campaign sponsoring, absolutely no side incomes whatsoever to any politicians from a business, regardless of what reason. For political information to reach the voters at all, government funded campaigns would have to be made for all political parties of a certain dignity. These campaigns would be cheap and more or less equal in size.
How insane does this sound?
I could get FIOS,
I hate you ;)
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?
Let's see. If you don't pay your taxes the IRS might put a lien on any property you own and they might garnish part of your wages. If you don't follow "silly" laws like buckling your seat belt you might get a ticket. Ditto for jay-walking (though I've never seen jay-walking enforced). A far cry from your comment about being "forced to do stuff at gunpoint with the threat of violence".
But let's see. Taxes are required for any functioning society. Seat belt laws have an economic basis -- namely an accident that you might have walked away from could wind up costing some insurance company a shitload of money. Jay-walking laws likewise exist (presumably) for safety considerations of vehicles and traffic.
Out of all those examples the only one I _might_ consider granting you would be the seat belt laws. There really isn't a reason for the Government to care if you live or die. Though if you abolish seat belt laws for adults (you can't abolish them for children because children can't legally consent to risking their life in such a manner) then I would find myself in favor of legislation that says you shouldn't qualify for disability (SSI) or anything along those lines if you weren't wearing your belt. Why should my tax dollars (and insurance premiums for that matter) pay for your stupidity?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
what is next? going down the street and arresting people for trying to convince others to vote for their person? fuck them all.
I don't know, I think it's a bit more complicated than people here are thinking. How do you feel about citizens going door to door, talking to their fellow citizens about why they think a particular candidate should be elected? Pretty good, right?
Do your feelings change if those citizens are on the payroll of a specific corporation or political party? What if they are being paid by that corporation to go door to door, pretending to be "concerned citizens"?
Like, let's say one presidential candidate had vowed to look into Microsoft's practices (yeah, I'm choosing MS because they're a popular villain here, and also politically neutral). Say the candidate had said, if it finds illegal/monopolistic behavior, he wants to break Microsoft up. Now, imagine an army of "concerned citizens", while being paid by Microsoft, go door to door spreading "FUD" about this candidate, pretending to do so only out of their own concern. Does it sound improper yet?
So would it be much different if, instead of going door-to-door, Microsoft paid them to set up phony political weblogs? What if they're not on the Microsoft payroll directly, but Microsoft is the major advertiser on the site? Where do you draw that line?
Now, I'm not saying it's clear-cut, that the government should regulate weblogs. I'm saying it's not clear-cut. There are lots of fine lines here, and room for impropriety. I'm not willing, yet, to dismiss the possibility that laws might be warranted. Perhaps political web sites should be forced to disclose their sponsors, just as TV ads do.
I'm not sure what's appropriate, but I'd like to hear a discussion on what laws are in discussion, and what people think the consequences would be.
Most other countries also have preprinted ballots. However, many of them have more than two parties in the parliament. Seems like the problem lies elsewhere.
Did you know that the United States sends back a higher percentage of it's Congressional incumbents than most countries? In fact, and I have heard this from many places, we send back a bigger percentage of than the old Soviet Politburo did in it's heyday.
Link to one story
Scary, huh?
I'd like a little more info on this if someone knows how FEC rules are made? Could you please tell me why a court is telling the FEC what regulations to make; rather than judging a case on its merits? Was there a case involved here at all? If so, which case was it, and what were its rulings? How does the FEC work? Are they supposed to be taking instruction from a federal court? Did the FEC ask the court for its opinion or did they make rules that the court struck down or say was unconstitutional? What branch of government does the FEC fall under?
If you don't pay your taxes the IRS might put a lien on any property you own and they might garnish part of your wages
Consider yourself lucky to live in such a benevolent country. Up here in Canada, if you run afoul of Revenue Canada you can look forward to having police show up on your doorstep, and under threat of arms, confiscate anything and everything of value they can find, including property belonging to your spouse and children. We had a case not too long ago where medals that children had won at school were siezed in a tax case.
But let's see. Taxes are required for any functioning society. Seat belt laws have an economic basis -- namely an accident that you might have walked away from could wind up costing some insurance company a shitload of money. Jay-walking laws likewise exist (presumably) for safety considerations of vehicles and traffic.
The problem is that, at least in Canada anyways, laws and taxes have loooong since surpassed that purpose. These days it's more about protecting the status quo (and the government bureaucracy that goes along with it). Why is health care such a huge issue in every Canadian election? Why can't doctors offer services without going through the government? Because there are thousands of people who depend on things staying they way they are and they have a powerful and very vocal union lobbying the government to neutralize any potential threats, like privatization. Why can't a farmer sell his own wheat to anyone he wants, or even process it himself? Because there is another block of people who depend on the status quo and work through the government to actively resist change. Why is margarine in Quebec white? Why don't I have a choice in basic auto insurance? Because laws and taxation have gone far beyond what is required for a safe, functioning society.
Things may be different where you're from. I don't know - it's all I can stand to keep up with the crock of shit that passes for politics in my own country.
Due to the electoral college system, analysts can predict well ahead of the election which states (and which COUNTIES) will swing the entire national election. A few county officials willing to commit fraud and a few rigged voting machines in the right places really can influence who wins the election.
I'm not saying there's any evidence this has ever actually happened in the United States, but Diebold is indisputably allied with the Republican party. It is a conflict of interest issue that is very much worth thinking about.
"I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president." - Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
Unless Diebold started manufacturing old-fashioned mechanical lever-actuated machines, my vote wasn't counted by them.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I totally agree with your post (the 1-8 points) - but here is the problem as I see it:
Such a candidate would never make it to a ballot.
The requirements to get on the ballot are insane, it requires an awful lot of money and signatures. Look at what happened to Nader - regardless of how you feel about the guy, even as well known and well backed as he was he had a hard time (and I'm not referring to the fact that he was viewed by some as a spoiler or as being responsible for Bush winning in 2000) I'm talking about all of the hoops he was made to jump through and the ways they found little technicalities to keep him from ballots and the way the media worked on him.
I am afraid that if a party (or candidate)came along that truly challenged the dominance of either of the 2 parties, here is what would happen:
They would use every legal means to make it hard for the candidate or party.
If that didn't work -
They'd find technicalities or cause other types of problems.
If that didn't work -
They'd dig into the past of the candidate/party and all associates to find anything potentionally embarrassing or discrediting and use the media to assail this person/party.
If that didn't work -
They'd manipulate/create a situation to accomplish the above -
If that didn't work -
Assuming anybody could make it through the gauntlet of challenges above (maybe someone should design a video game) - then they'd probably have some sort of accident (car, plane, whatever) - or possibly would commit suicide by slashing their own wrists and shooting themselves 7 times in the head.
I also agree that it will get worse before there is a chance of it getting better. In some ways we have lost our republic.
I am not saying it is impossible for things to improve, but I think that the public at large has to realize how much they are being manipulated by the media/polls/politicians and how truly corrupt the system is. It seems that a lot of people are finally realizing this.
On a related note I would urge everyone to read up on FEMA and the COG plan - what happens when FEMA declares a national emergency (the constitution is suspended - congress cannot intervene for 6 months at least) - I would urge them to read up on how this agency was created and the purpose, as well as all the executive orders that apply to FEMA and the COG.
The COG plan has been in place since the late 70s. It has been activated and fully functional since late 2001. This means that there is a parallel government operating in bunkers in the US right now waiting to take control should an emergency be declared. There does not have to be a ctastrophic attack. Do you know who these people are who will take control of the country after the constitution has been suspended?
Of course not. Their identities are secret - but the plan is not. I know this sounds like tin-foil hat material, but you can check into it for yourself.
Okay, I went off on a tangent there - but it is related. With what experts and people in power are saying about "peak oil" and terrorism etc, it will be a wonder if we have have another election, let alone one that's not a sham.