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

[hungrygrue]

I'd rather have the government (aka us) which is accountable to the people providing the public service than a company that is accountable to no one but its shareholders.

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

[hungrygrue]

and, as pointed out further down:

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

Hmm... Let's keep the big bad government from providing internet access, see they're evil - they're trying to protect free speech on the internet. How dare they!

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Shakrai]

You are aware they have guns, right?

You are aware that you can vote, right?

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

[Freexe]

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.

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

[Shakrai]

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?

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

[Dante333]

Its a lot easier to switch telcom companies that are giving you bad services, than to change your congressman or senator. The doubley crappy part about this is that we really can't count on the courts to say this is unconstituional. "Campaign Finance Reform" showed us that.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[Mr. Underbridge]

The corporation could care two shits about you unless you are a shareholder -- and even then they might still screw you (Enron).

The corporation is answerable to its customers in the same way that gov is answerable to the voters. Customers vote with their wallets.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[qkslvrwolf]

Apparently you live in the minority areas of the US where you actually can just switch teleco. For instance, wehre i live, my only option is SBC. Where most of my friends live, its charter. For some of my other friends, its "Sunflower Cable and Phone". I don't actually know anyone who has this choice. And its all thanks to the republicans and their "big media is good for everyone" bullshit myth. Which has also given us the current crop of uber conservative MSM, etc etc etc.

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

[TheOrange]

Some laws, no matter how stupid they may seem to you, really are for your own good.
This is sarcasm right?

I mean you wouldn't be so stupid as to justify laws in that fashion would you? Can you imagine laws forcing you to tie your shoes? Make your bed maybe? How about eat your breakfast, or exercise. I know, a law that says you shouldn't eat to many big macs, or drink soda.

This discussion started based on soon to be restrictions on political speech. Do you think some of the justification of those laws will be for our own good? I do. Do you know where the legislative branch can shove their laws abridging political discourse? Yeah, so do I.

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.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

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.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[lynx_user_abroad]

Care to offer some proof?

You misunderstand the problem. You are asking for proof of a rigged election, and I agree a rigged election is damaging to a democracy, but a rigged election is not the only thing which can damage a democracy. A voting populous which has lost confidence in the reliability of the voting process is as damaging to a democracy as the rigging of the election itself. And you don't need anyone to offer you proof that our confidence is shaken; your response to the orginal poster stands as that.

...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.

I'm sure they would be. I'm hoping they would be horrified and outraged even if it were their favored candidate who won. But you're putting an awful lot of reliance onto a system which appears to have been set up for the purpose of creating a riggable system. Electronic voting systems replace the evidence of a ballot with the testimony of a machine. And I for one cannot understand why we've suddenly decided, where voting is concerned, that testimony should be trusted as much as hard evidence. Consider:

This is a summary of voter registrations for 2004 in Chatham county North Carolina. It shows about 16K registered Democrats, about 9K registered Republicans, and about 6K unaffiliated or independent voters.

A reasonable person would conclude from these public records that Chatham county leans Democratic. Some might say heavily.

It wouldn't surprise anyone, then, when John Kerry carried the county, and the resultsfrom the election (forgive their broken HTML) show this to be the case. What's interesting is the vote summary. Kerry beat Bush by 5 votes.

Game theory teaches us that if you're planning to rig an election, you don't add votes in precincts where you will win, but rather in precincts where you will lose, with the goal of making the race close but still a loss. Your opponent is not going to ask for a recount in places where he won, especially if he only won by a small margin.

In the national election, it doesn't matter squat that John Kerry won Chatham county North Carolina, (except perhaps to placate those Dems living in Chatham); the only thing that matters in the presidental election is who had the overall greatest vote.

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.

I applaude you sentiment, but perhaps now you can understand how even a plan such as this is dependent on a trustable balloting system. Perhaps the non-voting half were convinced in the last election, and we're where we are today anyway.

But as for proof, I can no more offer evidence that the vote was rigged than I can offer evidence that it wasn't. And that should concen both the winners and the losers.

Re:And people wonder why you should be against

[moxley]

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.

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

[JanneM]

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.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[StrawberryFrog]

Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount

So, what you're saying is that if it's legalised it's no longer corruption? Sounds barking mad to me. Name one country that sucessfully operates in this manner.

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.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[TheRealMindChild]

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.

Are you kidding me? Politians are very much like (to use some imagery that you people can relate to) . You need/want a feature, you are willing to throw some money at it to make it happen, so you approach said open source project leader and say, "I am willing to donate 6 million dollars to your cause if you are willing to take care of our needs in terms of feature X". You say no, you get no money.

Now let us make this example with say... a Pennsylvania Senator... Comcast approaches said senator and says "I see you are about to run for office again... I am willing to put some money toward your cause, if you can make our 'zoning issues' go away". "No" means no money. You think that is ok? I sure the hell dont.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[SirChive]

"Campaign Donations are the ultimate form of free speech" This is possibly the single most idiotic statement I've seen this week.

Spending money does not equal speech. Buying influence DOES NOT equal freedom.

Your ridiculous premise leads to nothing except government by and for the rich.

The root of the corruption of our political system is corporate influence. Eliminate that and you will take a huge step towards restoring political power to the people. But it won't happen because corporations and politicians are entwined in an unholy dance of power and wealth.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[TheViffer]

And if there was ever a place for this .. its right here.

4) Profit

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[i_should_be_working]

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

Some places (like Canada) are solving the problem by going in the opposite direction. Limit campaign financing serverely so that even those small third (fourth, fifth, sixth) parties can spend just as much on their campaign as the big two.

I prefer this way. After all, just because there's no limit to donations surely doesn't guarantee equal footing for the smaller parties. Especially if they had little money to begin with. No advertising -> no public awareness -> no donations.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[bedroll]

If you really want to fix the system you would take away some of the rights afforded to corporations. Corporations have only financial interests in mind, nothing social or moral. Our representatives are supposed to be just that: ours, not the corporations. Even if corporations may have our financial interests in mind (third to their executives first and their stockholders second) they clearly do not represent the people, nor are they people in themselves.

Campaigns should only be able to be financed by individuals and non-profit groups. It should also be a criminal act to release the identities of contributors except under subpoena or to an oversight committee. This would help to prevent strong-arming. If this were the case then the social and moral aspects of society will start to become more important to our representatives, and they would truly start representing the people they serve.

We would still need laws to govern this, and laws to prevent only the wealthy and powerful to be heard. We wouldn't have to worry as much about repressing speech, though, because it would be much more likely that it was the view of an individual being expressed.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[ScentCone]

Now you're getting it. A less effective government will be less intrusive, and that's Good.

Yes, generally less activity (by last-50-years historical standards) on the part of the federal government is a good thing. But "less effective" != "less intrusive," I think.

Less intrusive is less intrusive. More effective at doing what needs to be done so they don't have to be intrusive is the Good Thing.

But a congress too busy to do anything well because it's just arguing with itself is still going to do things, just Very Badly (read: worse than now). With my money.

Re:Money = Expression = Speech

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Yep.

[dangitman]

They'll probably just turn blogs over to the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. You're good to go if you have the platinum "Gannon" license for internet bloggification. After several background and body-cavity searches, naturally.

So, uh...

[untaken_name]

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.

Wost Summary Ever

[adavies42]

The summary is 180 degrees wrong on the bill, which will (as the title suggest) protect blogs: here's the actual text.

Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end of the following new sentence: "Such term shall not include communications over the Internet."

For more info, see this blog post.

Re:Wost Summary Ever

[adavies42]

Ah, and now we have a totally pointless update by Zonk that fixes a minor error while still leaving the story entirely wrong. Brilliant.

campaign finance = freedom of speech?

[rovingeyes]

What am I missing here. How is campaign finance related to freedom of speech?

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.

Re:campaign finance = freedom of speech?

[RexRhino]

Because how are you going to pay for pamphlets, radio commercials, tv commericals? How are you going to pay to travel around the country to make speeches? How are you going to pay for your website bill? All of this stuff is expensive.

A limit on the money you can spend or accept in donations is a limit on freedom of speech.

When the government says that a party can only accept $1000 donation per person per year, that is great for the two mega-giant political parties who have millions of memebers. But if I am starting a new party, and I get together with 20 other people to start the organization, our organization is limited in resources to $20,000 a year, by law. Now, tell me, how exactly is our party supposed to compete with the two big parties when limited to $20,000 year? (and doesn't just include money... if a person advertises us on a blog, if a person allows us to stay at their house for free when we are traveling the country, if someone lends us PA equipment so we can make a speech, we have to calculate the value of that, and it is counted against that $20,000.)

Essentially, in election time, any speech that is not endorced by one of the two big parties, is illegal. And this is all done using "capaign finance" laws.

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:Excuse me mother fuckers

[Fezzick]

Funny how democrates were the ones that wanted campaign finance reform in the first place (when it suited them).

Government By, For, and Of the Lawyers

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Ring ring - Globalization calling!

[pla]

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.

Free Speech Must Be Limited and Controlled

[SirChive]

The emerging Fascist State of America will feel compelled to put limits on anything that might threaten it's power. When the voice of the little man can reach out to the multitude this is very threatening.

America will accept this without a whimper. We've already lost our right to assemble. Protesters are shipped off to designated fenced-in "free speech zones". US Citizens are held indefinately without charges or a trial.

Meanwhile 80% of Americans are oblivious to the massive increase in Federal power. They care more about the newest episode of The Lost than they do about their Lost Civil Rights. The 20% who do care are increasingly powerless.

Re:Free Speech Must Be Limited and Controlled

[stlhawkeye]

We've already lost our right to assemble. Protesters are shipped off to designated fenced-in "free speech zones". US Citizens are held indefinately without charges or a trial.

In other words, we haven't lost our right to assemble. What we've lost is the right to assemble wherever the fuck we want, which is a Good Thing, because until some limits were in place, "peaceful" assemblies of pro-life nutjobs would canvas abortion clinics and harrass women going in and coming out. I'm in favor of fencing people like this off across the street so that private citizens can engage in private business without being hassled.

Meanwhile 80% of Americans are oblivious to the massive increase in Federal power.

I think 80% of Americans just don't care whether it's Republicans or Democrats bloating federal government and trampling upon their rights. Most of them don't run blogs, don't protest anything, don't watch public TV. Most citizens of most countries are not engaged in the political process beyond inheriting opinions from their family and friends and reciting them when called upon. Lots of people don't even do that much. It's human nature to not care when things that don't impact your lifestyle directly are changed. This is why it's so easy to tax the shit out of corporations and rich people. None of us are corporate board members or rich people, so why the hell would we care what the government does to them? Gotta pay for something? Tax rich people! Because 99.92% of us are NOT rich and we don't care, and it satisfies, frankly, a jealous instinct to see those snotty bastards with their Grey Poupon and luxury cars having to hand over more of their income.

They care more about the newest episode of The Lost than they do about their Lost Civil Rights. The 20% who do care are increasingly powerless.

Why would they care about civil rights they never execute? I'm not defending civic apathy, don't misunderstand, but you sound very frustrated and perplexed about this, and I don't think it's a difficult issue. People don't care because it has a negligable direct impact on their lifestyle. When Desperate Housewives is interrupted for a late-breaking news bulliten about weather, people get irate. Federal and state congresses, meanwhile, pass increasingly stupid and odious laws that amount to more government, more wasted money, and more people who work or the state, and nobody cares. We have a massive infrastructure of vehicle emissions testing here in St. Louis, that involves dozens of testing facilities, hundreds of employees, an accounting department to handle receipts, and all kinds of garbage to make sure that our cars aren't polluting too much. After running the program it was determined that it has had no effect on the quality of the air here. So what are they doing? Leaving it to run, because it generates income, and in a few more years, it'll bring in more to the government than it has cost so far.

That's government. And people don't care because they only have to go through this Mickey Mouse charade of emissions testing once every two years. But you don't dare interrupt House to tell me about a goddam tornado.

Re:Full On Facsim is Coming

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Shut up and show us your papers.

You know, (pauses to draw on cigarette) ve hav vays to make you blog.

Re:Huh.....

[technoextreme]

"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."

What about slander and libel laws???

Touch your toes.

[dangitman]

I'm intrigued by your sales pitch. Do you have a flyer?

Why, yes. It's made of latex and has five fingers.

a leap too far...

[moviepig.com]

Bloggers [say] that regulations encompassing ... Internet ... advertising ... would have a chilling effect on free speech.

Granted that controlling political spending is a two-sided philosophical issue. But...

...how does advertising-accountability limit the freedom of expression in a blogger's content? (...unless, of course, the two are more intertwined that any blogger would likely admit)

Re:Excuse me mother fuckers

[the_2nd_coming]

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.

Oh boy

[Junior J. Junior III]

I can hardly wait for the next 18 months of C-SPAN, in which completely clueless congressional representatives and senators answer once and for all the question of "What is a blog?" It's not as though there's a clear line of demarkcation here. The definition they eventually settle on will necessarily be fundamentally broken, rife with false negatives as well as false positives.

For that matter, all speech is political speech. Politics isn't a partitionable category that you can draw a line around. Politics touches everything, and everything has its political aspects to it.

That aside, I thought that unregulated speech was the American way. Check out the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Oh wait, I guess we've been misreading the Constitution these last 220+ years. Laws disrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abrdiging the freedom of speech, or of the press, etc. is apparently kosher.

HAHAHA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:HAHAHA

[BeanThere]

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)?

No.

[DavidTC]

The heart may be in the right place, but the issue isn't who can communicate how.

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.

Re:Excuse me mother fuckers

[nine-times]

it is one thing to limit money, it is another thing to limit actual speech as if it were an advertisement.

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.

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.

Reporters without Borders Handbook for Bloggers

[G4from128k]

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.

Re:He who counts the votes...

[Shakrai]

Diebold has more power than we do.

I guess I missed the headline about Diebold being mandated in every state and county in the Union then. I guess all those elections officials are probably on the Diebold payroll too. Damn and my next door neighbor seemed like such a nice gal too....

Your vote, it is worthless, and has been for a good eight years or so.

I'll remember that the next time we have a school budget that's decided by six votes. Or the next time our assembly race is decided by 90 votes out of a few thousand.

People with your attitude are more dangerous then any bought off Congressman. Lose some cynicism and try to work to change what you don't like about our country/government.

Sidenote, but relevant

[tacokill]

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?

A federal court has instructed

[follower_of_christ]

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.

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?

questioning

[phlegmofdiscontent]

"The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules."

Sometimes, I question the necessity of a government.

What good is "free speech"?

[X.25]

What good is free speech if you're regulated how you can tell it, where you can tell it and what you can tell? That's not free speech anymore.

What you can say and how you can say it are things which are being regulated these days.

Even if you say what you want, you can get ready to get sued (by some corporation or by govt or by whomever), so you also better have deep pockets.

If you're a Washigton Post reporter and have backing of the management/lawyers, you can tell things. If you're a blog writer with the same information/sources as WP guy - you probably will end up in lots of trouble.

Free speech my ass. We're all bloody slaves, people just don't want to realize/admit it.

Re:He who counts the votes...

[Johnboi Waltune]

I guess I missed the headline about Diebold being mandated in every state and county in the Union then. I guess all those elections officials are probably on the Diebold payroll too. Damn and my next door neighbor seemed like such a nice gal too....

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

Re:Barrel of a gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you'll probably only find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun if you resist arrest (after failing to follow some of the laws/regulations you mention) or if you threaten violence yourself.

And rape is only violent if the victim resists or threatens violence herself! Good point! As long as the victim just sits there and takes it, they probably won't get bruised at all. I love how you just broke everything down so logically!

Re:He who counts the votes...

[operagost]

Unless Diebold started manufacturing old-fashioned mechanical lever-actuated machines, my vote wasn't counted by them.

Get an original thought

[benhocking]

Or at least try to find a valid thought.

You (not me) are actually comparing laws against speeding to rape? Or perhaps you're comparing arrest to rape? I don't know which, but either way, your argument is inane.

Or perhaps you don't understand my point. Jail != barrel of a gun. Perhaps that is too logical for you, however. More than likely you're upset because your favorite pet argument has been shown to be lame.