FEC Will Not Regulate Political Blogging

eldavojohn writes "Despite complaints that political bloggers should be subject to campaign finance laws since they are donating huge amounts of money in the form of advertising and media services to candidates, the FEC will not regulate political blogging. From the FEC statement: 'While the complaint asserts that DailyKos advocates for the election of Democrats for federal office, the commission has repeatedly stated that an entity that would otherwise qualify for the media exemption does not lose its eligibility because it features news or commentary lacking objectivity or expressly advocates in its editorial the election or defeat of a federal candidate.'"

Comments

What qualifies for a media exemption?

[fotbr]

Number of readers? Advertising income?

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of balloons that can be lifted by all the hot air.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Chuckstar]

IANAL, but the answer to this question is based in 208 years of First Amendment law. Probably too voluminous to go into on this forum. However, "press" as defined under federal law is extremely broadly defined.

The key issues that the FEC looks at are as follows:

Is the organization in question owned or controlled by any "political party, political committee, or candidate" (these are defined under the regs). If it is owned by any of these, then it is considered an arm of that group and not "press".

If it is not owned by any of these, then the next question is whether the "major purpose [of the organization] is involvement in campaign activity". If the answer is yes, then it is considered a political committee (see above).

Note that campaign activity is specifically meant to be narrowly defined as involved in a federal election campaign. It does not encompass political activity broadly.

So as long as an organization publishing to the web cannot be considered owned or controlled by any political part, political committee, or candidate and its major purpose is not to be involved in campaign activity, then its protected from these regulations.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[eln]

I hope your mother gets diarrhea tonight. Seriously? Is that the best you could come up with? That has to be the weakest "your mother" joke I've ever heard. If you're going to post flamebait at least try and put a little pride in your work.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[conspirator57]

Hopefully just citizenship. While it's run by an individual it's constitutionally protected speech.

At some point in the muddied waters or tea leaves the government decides you're a business (say because you let an ad banner firm place ads on your site in order to defray the hosting cost, or say when you pass some number of daily readers, or say whatever, but definitely by the time you incorporate or get a business license.) This is an area the Internet has made difficult for the government and is another, broader issue entirely.

When that happens your company is categorized for a number of purposes, including taxes and business insurance. If you are a text/media content provider, then you are most likely some sort of publisher, which I think means for the FEC's purposes you are a media outlet, and thus in the same category as any other media outlet.

Besides which, the big boys selectively report and even endorse candidates. And given the economic pressure the newspapers are under, it won't be long before some of them have shrunk to the point that some former-individual-blog-turned-opinion-site (Drudge, anyone?) is bigger than them. Will there then be calls to strip that newspaper of their media credentials or FEC exemption?

Besides, many newspapers are divesting their printing press and contracting with a larger regional paper for printing. At what point is a paper no longer a paper?

Likewise, there are some individuals who have their own papers published (call them crackpots if you want, but remember that's how many of our more venerable papers started.)

How will you distinguish between "legitimate" media and the rest? Is it a worthy expenditure of government resources? Does it violate the rights of those determined not to be "press"?

The best solution is for the government to leave it alone and let the economy sort it out, which surprisingly enough is what the FEC chose to do. That's what we have a "free" market for, right? Oh, yeah it isn't free: it's mercantilism.

And until it isn't mercantilism we'll have people and companies calling for discrimination in order to protect larger businesses.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT, YHL, HAND.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[veganboyjosh]

...Probably too voluminous to go into on this forum...

You must be new here.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Anonymous Coward]

ASDOJds[asodifnhsfbdof oASHNDAOJFhnafbsdonvj fUHfhufsdfuosdjfbf fbdvs bIUBDSAIDAIdbiasn fvsdvcdubv fzfh;vb dszawefszdub gvfdndfvsd; fv habdisbiunhfasdfb

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Original Replica]

"press" as defined under federal law is extremely broadly defined.

Given how influential Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" pamphlets were in spreading the movement towards the Revolution, I would think that one sided, heavy handed, idealogical rantings would be Constitutionally protected. DailyKos is the modern day equivalent of the political pamphlet, and should be protected as such. If there is going to be any kind of strong Democratic leadership/ideology to emerge places like the DailyKos are going to be important in sorting out a unified Democratic vision. Right now the only thing they have going for them is that they aren't the Republicans. That lack of cohesiveness and vision is how Kerry lost in 2004.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestone s/commonsense/

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should have done a fucking search of the contents of the page before shooting your mouth off? Let's see, ctrl-F, type kdawson, yup - highlighted right there at the top. But no, you couldn't be bothered to do that. You had to jump in and start questioning people because your tiny little brain didn't pick up the fucking reference. Have some sympathy for others and don't fucking post here ever again you stupid cumdumpster. I hope your mother gets diarrhea tonight.

Jesus Christ dude go back on the cigerettes. You go off on someone like that in person and your lifespan will be shorter then if you smoke. Unless you only behave like got up on the wrong side of the universe on the net that is.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[conspirator57]

it means that it is about as different from a free market as an oligarchy is from a democratic republic, or is supposed to be, coward.

I'll refrain from the ad hominem, obscene insult. You've insulted yourself quite enough with the one you directed at me, thank you.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[sg_oneill]

"Seriously? Is that the best you could come up with? That has to be the weakest "your mother" joke I've ever heard. If you're going to post flamebait at least try and put a little pride in your work."

Does mother have to have gritts in her pants for it to be an acceptable troll?

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[wmansir]

the next question is whether the "major purpose [of the organization] is involvement in campaign activity". If the answer is yes, then it is considered a political committee (see above).

According to Kos himself:

It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.

It's something their former golden girl Cindy Sheehan found out when she was considering running against a Democrat, and was (according to her last Kos post) warned to stop posting on the site if she did.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Actual Reality]

I am just curious as to if you are going to feel this way when the democrats try to ram through the "Fairness Doctrine" in an effort to squelch talk radio? Do you really believe in free speech or do you just want it when it is beneficial to the democratic party?

~AR

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Chuckstar]

I am not in favor of the fairness doctrine, however, it does represent a significant difference from pamphletering or blogging. It only applied (would apply) to a narrow range of media that utilize a public resource for disemination -- the public airwaves.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Chuckstar]

The reason he would have wanted Cindy Sheehan to stop posting if she was running is precisely because the site could then be considered to be involved in her campaign activity.

When the FEC states that it is only a concern if the "major purpose is involvement in campaign activity", they define "campaign activity" only as activities that promote an individual or party conducted <i>in connection with an election</i>.

A vast majority of what DailyKos does bears no connection to any particular election (i.e. is not a campaign activity), however partisan its goals may be.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Actual Reality]

It is good to hear that you would apply the same standard. I wish the same could be said for the liberals in Washington. Do consider that while talk radio programs generally lean towards conservatism, that the major news networks (whom also use the public airwaves) lean towards liberalism. Keep in mind that talk radio is market driven. The people who listen to talk radio want to hear conservative thinking. Have you ever noticed that Air Amercia has to be propped up by donations from left wing groups? Why? Because most people don't want to listen to it. Forcing radio stations to air shows that the listeners do not want to hear would, in effect, cause the listeners to quit listening. This would drive them out of business. I submit to you that this is the intention of the democratic politicians. The same could be said of whoever filed the FEC complaint against the liberal blog that started this discussion. Even though I would disagree with most everything on that blog, I think that people have a right to say what they think and have a place to say it. The unfortunate thing is that if a democratic president is elected, the democrats will most likely be successful in shutting down much of talk radio. This should scare all of us to death.

~AR

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[hedwards]

Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't they do it? It is a much less painful solution than requiring the media outlets to provide accurate reporting.

Given the problems that changepac, Swiftboat veterans for truth, the US chamber of commerce and others that specifically and intentionally break campaign finance laws and other related regulations in order to publicly spend on libelous attack ads. Interfering in the political process directly and intentionally to destroy the opposition candidate.

It might seem to you to be a liberal trick, but requiring that bloggers disclose when they are being paid off is especially important now that blogs regularly get covered by more traditional media outlets. As well as the large number of people that read them. It will be even more so as blogs gain the same rights and privileges that the traditional news sources have.

I do kind of wonder what kind of a person you are if you are OK, with illegal actions as long as they support your party. Seems kind of hypocritical to accuse the Democrats of trying to rig things when the opposition party is already engaged in significant abuses of power. I'm not saying that the Democrats haven't benefited from this kind of thing ever, but as an apparent pseudo conservative you should recognize that corruption is bad for business whether it is for or against your candidates.

Allowing "news" outlets to swing only in favor of the right, while not allowing for the left to have appropriate rebuttal time is an excellent way of slipping into a less than democratic way of doing things. I'm really doubtful that you would feel the same way if it was your views that were being shortchanged for somebody elses.

BTW, I'm a conservative, I'm just not an idiot.

Re:What qualifies for a media exemption?

[Actual Reality]

[Quote] Just out of curiosity, why shouldn't they do it? It is a much less painful solution than requiring the media outlets to provide accurate reporting. [/Quote]

So you are saying that the network television news agencies, CNN and such provide accurate reporting? Why single out talk radio? Why not force the networks to report accurate information? Why don't they mention the fact that Hillary Clinton's college thesis is being withheld from the public? Is there something there she doesn't want us to know? Seems like all the news agencies would be curious. This is just one example of network media bias. Can you give me some specific information from a talk radio host that was incorrect?

[Quote] Given the problems that changepac, Swiftboat veterans for truth, the US chamber of commerce and others that specifically and intentionally break campaign finance laws and other related regulations in order to publicly spend on libelous attack ads. Interfering in the political process directly and intentionally to destroy the opposition candidate. [/Quote]

If these people were actually libelous, then they could have been sued as such. I don't remember a successful lawsuit against them. Which campaign finance laws did they break?

[Quote] It might seem to you to be a liberal trick, but requiring that bloggers disclose when they are being paid off is especially important now that blogs regularly get covered by more traditional media outlets. As well as the large number of people that read them. It will be even more so as blogs gain the same rights and privileges that the traditional news sources have. [/Quote}

I think people that read blogs know they are reading peoples opinions. Do you want Air America to have to disclose that it is funded by left wing groups?

[Quote] I do kind of wonder what kind of a person you are if you are OK, with illegal actions as long as they support your party. Seems kind of hypocritical to accuse the Democrats of trying to rig things when the opposition party is already engaged in significant abuses of power. I'm not saying that the Democrats haven't benefited from this kind of thing ever, but as an apparent pseudo conservative you should recognize that corruption is bad for business whether it is for or against your candidates. [/Quote]

I am not OK with illegal actions from either side. You haven't given any examples of illegal actions. If the democrats successfully apply the fairness doctrine to talk radio and not to network and/or cable television, then that is where the true corruption lies.

[Quote] Allowing "news" outlets to swing only in favor of the right, while not allowing for the left to have appropriate rebuttal time is an excellent way of slipping into a less than democratic way of doing things. I'm really doubtful that you would feel the same way if it was your views that were being shortchanged for somebody elses. [/Quote]

We have been getting hammered with liberal banter from the major media outlets for years. My views have been shortchanged by ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and the likes for many years. If you are a liberal, then you have plenty of media outlets from which to get your fill of left wing jargon. The only place to hear conservative ideas is from Fox News and talk radio. Forcing talk radio stations to air liberal shows that no one wants to hear would only serve to amke their audiences go away. This is what the democrats want to do. Radio stations are there to make money. They can't make money airing shows that people don't want to listen to. If liberal ideas are so wonderful, why don't people want to hear them? Where I live, we had to endure the Alan Colmes show and the Larry King show before they went belly up. If the market is just not there, why should radio station be forced to air the stuff. Should television networks be forced to air conservative shows?

[Quote] BTW, I'm a conservative, I'm just not an idiot. [/Quote]

If you voted for John Kerry, then you are not a conservative.

~AR

Doesn't matter anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look what they accomplished in '04. Nothing. Only people with already closed minds read kos.

Re:Doesn't matter anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

This got modded something other than funny? Really? It's sort of glaring in the fact that it mentions 2004 and not 2006...cause, uh, you might want to take a look at the amount of money they raised through various channels, and what happened to the candidates they supported. The answers, respectively, are "several hundred thousand dollars", and "they won".

Who says government doesn't work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knew DailyKos advocates for the election of Democrats?

We should get these FEC guys to settle the global warming debate.

How long until they change their minds?

[Critical Facilities]

Seriously. I think this is great as it gives at least some hope to the prospect of getting third parties on a ballot and giving them some sort of visibility to compete with the standard two parties. What I wonder is, what if a large, successful site (similar to Slashdot, but with an obvious political angle) starts to give enough attention to a third party candidate that seriously threatens the chances of the other 2 parties winning? I'm betting suddenly there would be changes in regulations. I hope not, but I bet there would be.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Ross Perot again

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Relic of the Future]

The failure of third-party candidates isn't as much about lack of exposure as it is about simple mathematics. The way we count votes actively discourages more than two contenders being in any election.

In order to have any chance, third-parties need to get "first past the post" removed as the voting algorthm, and replaced with something like a Condorcet or even (bleh) IRV system.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[eln]

Sites with obvious political biases tend to be frequented only by people with similar political biases. In todays "party uber alles" political culture, these sites are basically echo chambers for members of the particular political party they align with. If one of these sites decided to switch to a third party, it would probably lose a vast majority of its readers as they all went in search of a site for their party. This would happen even if the political philosophy of the site didn't change at all.

The biggest problem with third parties today other than finances is perception. People don't support third parties in any great numbers because all of the major third parties are out on the fringes of the political spectrum. Most people hang out in the political middle, so a 3rd party that caters to the far left (like the Greens) or the far right (like the Libertarians) aren't going to have a whole lot of luck winning elections on the national level. They can only win in localities where the population is heavily skewed toward one end of the political spectrum or the other.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Sczi]

The failure of third-party candidates isn't as much about lack of exposure as it is about simple mathematics. The way we count votes actively discourages more than two contenders being in any election. In order to have any chance, third-parties need to get "first past the post" removed as the voting algorthm, and replaced with something like a Condorcet or even (bleh) IRV system.

Amen, condorcet or something like it, ftw. And completely do away with primaries while we're at it.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[kpainter]

Not Ross Perot again Ssshhh! Hear it? Its that huge sucking sound again!

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[lucabrasi999]

Go with Proportional Representation, that will give you third-party representation. Then again, you could end up with some lunatic fringe parties.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[conspirator57]

or at least make the primaries like in NH where anyone can vote for anyone regardless of party.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[cybermage]

You can't swing a cat in this town anymores without braining a couple Mexicans.

That's some cat! You'd think the first Mexican would probably stop its momentum.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally think is horrible that we have to wish for a third party candidate. The elections should run on a different voting system that doesn't lead us eventually into the polarized voting situation we are in now.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[hidannik]

Most Libertarians would dispute any characterization of their party as far-right, after first disputing that political views can be seen as along only a single dimension.

Instead they would characterize themselves as in favor of both extreme economic freedom (a view usually associated with the far right) and extreme social/personal freedom (a view usually associated with the far left).

Hans

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[sethstorm]

Then again, you could end up with some lunatic fringe parties. Not much different than what we have now, but at least "the base" is just "the base".

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[networkBoy]

Nah.
You vote for who you least want in office. Like golf, the lowest score wins.
Make the bar to get on the ballet high enough to discourage lunatics (say 100K for a non-incumbent, 20K for past office holders of same level (state/federal/etc.), 10K for incumbents).
-nB

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can't swing a cat in this town anymores without braining a couple Mexicans.

That's some cat! You'd think the first Mexican would probably stop its momentum.

Maybe he was referring to this cat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_o'_nine_tails

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[I_Voter]

Seriously. I think this is great as it gives at least some hope to the prospect of getting third parties ...

-----------------

I am still waiting for a democratic (small d ) blog. The U.S. voters have very little ability to influence the government no matter how they vote.

One Point

Our legislative political system (plurality elections) resembles a soda vending machine with only two brands of soda, - and it takes your money (wastes your vote) about 40 percent of the time! It is possible to find that type of voting machine with more products (3rd parties), but then there is an even greater probability that it will waste your vote!

Apparently U.S. politicians use the runoff system for leadership elections. They know what is good for the voter when they are the voter.

Another Point

Next U.S. voters might want to examine what is meant by a political party as opposed to a political label.

Political parties in the U.S. used to be organizations that could field politicians that reflected the organizations interests, and would carry the organizations name on the ballot. By requiring political parties to nominate by publicly funded primaries, the state can specify the requirements for ballot access for the primary elections. The private member based political parties technically still exist, but now have no control over their own name! That is why in the U.S.- party platforms are, relative to most other nations, mostly meaningless jokes. And remember: One elected politician can't pass a law! Heck: One elected politician can't get a bill out of committee!

A political party in a two-party system is a gigantic coalition of many different interests. Lacking an enforceable party platform, the other forces that decide which of these interests will get rewarded, after the votes are counted, are not very clear in either major party. Not clear to the voter anyway.

I_Voter

From The voters perspective

Much like Alice's cat - political parties have disappeared, leaving behind nothing but the many similar smiles of very individualistic politicians.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Xonstantine]

Sites with obvious political biases tend to be frequented only by people with similar political biases. Well duh. That sorta stands to reason. I mean, you don't have people who hate Elmo going to Elmo fan sites very often do you? The only reason why a Republican would go to DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground would be for oposition research. It's not like they allow dissenting points of view posted there..and given that, you aren't going to attract and keep folks that haven't already swallowed the ideological koolaid. Lest anyone thinks I'm picking on Democrats, I believe that the FreeRepublic is also run the same way. I think both sides spend a lot more time on demonizing than they do prosletizing these days. You aren't going to attract many converts by shitting on the would-be converts.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[joebok]

I'm personally in favor of an Approval or Range voting approach - but you are absolutely right it is the voting system that is locking us into two parties. But how do you get representatives to change the system that got them their job? Ug.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Original Replica]

But how do you get representatives to change the system that got them their job? Ug.

It could be done, relatively peacefully, but only if a lot higher percentage of America knew and cared about the severe flaws in our voting system. If you could get the 36% of America that didn't vote in 2004 to actively express their dissatisfaction with our voting system, then it would become an issue would be addressed, eventually. But when that dissatisfaction manifests as voter apathy, well then the problems with our system are met with political apathy. As long as no politician can expect to win a Senate seat off of a campaign based in "Range Voting for a better USA" there will be no change.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[notclevernickname]

Well of course there would be regulation changes. I mean, you actually think that our congress critters would want us to have a choice that represents what their constituents really want?

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Sigismundo]

Sites with obvious political biases tend to be frequented only by people with similar political biases.

I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh on AM radio every day on my drive home from school. This was during Clinton's second term, and each day he would grimly declare: "America Held Hostage: Day two thousand one hundred thirty seven" or something like that and it would crack me up every time. I definitely don't agree with his political biases, but I listened to his shows for just that reason.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[speaker of the truth]

What tells you that? Science? Let me tell you something boy about when I grew up. We didn't have no science, we had to make do on superstitions and I'll tell you there was a lot less emo people back then too! They were simpler times, they were better times, and we knew that if we wanted to brain a couple of Mexicans with a cat, we could if we swung real hard on the third day of every second month if there was a full moon!

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[tsotha]

That's not the only problem, or even the biggest one. Third parties tend to "steal" votes from one of the major parties, so by voting third party you're essentially supporting the one guy out of the three that you'd be least likely to vote for.

That's the "spoiler" effect that put Bill Clinton into office in 1992 and George Bush into office in 2000. I find it hard to believe many people who voted for Nader in 2000 would have chosen Bush over Gore. Given the election was so close it's hard to argue against the stipulation "Ralph Nader elected George Bush".

So it's not hard to understand why lots of people refuse to support third parties. Personally I'd rather the US had some kind of parliamentary system, where I could vote for the party that most represents my views. But that just isn't going to happen, barring some extraordinary event.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Nimey]

What really shits me is that we /had/ a viable centrist third party, Reform. It had Ross Perot get it started, and he was the premier candidate in '92 and '96. I think the party had won some state elections.

Then that miserable cur Pat Buchanan came in in 2000 and hijacked the party. He'd /always/ run as Republican before. My personal theory is that he ran as a spoiler because Reform was seen as a threat to the Republican Party. So Reform split into far-right (Buchanan) and loonies (Hagelin), and we lost a damn good hope for moderates to get power back from the far-left[1] and the far-right.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_U nited_States_of_America

[1] Relatively speaking, this *is* the USA.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[falsified]

The Reform party was a holding tank, not a party. A party isn't a party without a platform, unless it's a revolutionary party, in which case you really have a one-point platform ("freedom" or something).

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Libertarian Party is not far right. If anything it is far left -- just not socialist left.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Nimey]

Didn't bother reading the link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Party_of_the_U nited_States_of_America#Platform

I still think the party's point (when it was a going concern) was to be moderate, rather than divisive. Considering who we've ended up with running the country (the Great Polarizer)...

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The party's point was to get George Bush, Sr., un-elected in 1992.

Two weeks before the Democratic convention, it was hopeless for the Democrats. Comedians were even making jokes about it. One joked that a worker assembling the convention stage said, "Ahhh, what's the point?"

Then, the day Clinton will speak, Perot pulls out. The eyes of the nation turn to see what Clinton will say. The rest is history.

Perot did a masterful job -- mission accomplished!

Given him and Bush, Sr., were bigshots in the Republican party going back to Nixon, one wonders what bad blood is floating around between them.

But the party was not about anything else. It was deliberately set up to be a nebulous thing True Believers could project their desires onto.

Re:How long until they change their minds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead they would characterize themselves as in favor of both extreme economic freedom (a view usually associated with the far right) and extreme social/personal freedom (a view usually associated with the far left).

Hans Unfortunately they never seem to realize that the former inevitably leads to the suppression of the latter.

Huh.

[cromar]

This shouldn't even be a question. Speech != $$$ in any real way that I can think of. Also, economic generalizations != reality.

Re:Huh.

[lucabrasi999]

Well, speech can equal money. When working on a campaign, you not only purchase advertising (television, radio, etc.), you also try to get as much 'free' media as you can. I have held news conferences in front of the opposition HQ, in order to get my candidate on the front page of the newspaper. The more your name is mentioned, the better your chances are. Even negative publicity is still publicity.

I don't agree with the republican that submitted the complaint, but it will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years. Kos has shown to be a real force within the Democratic establishment. He is changing the way campaigns are run, from raising money, to coordinating volunteers, to even Get Out the Vote. I don't think you've heard the last of this.

Re:Huh.

[Gnostic Ronin]

Money = the microphone. You can still print out or write anything you want and other than buying paper, it's free. You have the right to free speech. No one ever said anything about the microphone.

As far as KOS is concerned -- no we haven't seen the last of it. I expect the blogs to be regulated like PAC before too long. There are too many people with a lot of power who don't want some upstart blogger to have enough power to sway voters. They want to be able to control what's said, and the mainstream press is already pretty tame on the whole deal. They need to get interviews with the candidates, so they don't investigate them, and they don't publish anything negative about them. Blogs are the last truely independent press, and I think that scares the Elitist Superstructure who don't want to answer tough questions.

What everyone already knows about the internet

[ackthpt]

It's not for promoting candidates, it's for smearing their opponents.

but dailykos.com takes bribes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not bribes, but payola. The reason he plugs particular democratic candidates is that they pay him to do so.

That clear moves away from editorial opinion into paid advertising.

However, Markos isn't very good at it. Every one of the democratic candidates he plugs has gone down to defeat. Quite a record.

Good news

[eck011219]

This seems to be good news (though I'll admit that I haven't been following the issue as much as I'd like to have -- I'm sure someone will point out a very reasonable downside to it).

I think the bad feelings (and subsequent reactionary attempts at regulation) come from the fact that the conservative voter base tends to be a bit older and less Internet-savvy. There's no reason they couldn't have the conservative equivalent of DailyKos, but it just wouldn't get read as much. So to conservatives it feels like there's an unfair advantage and that bloggers should follow the same rules as those who advertise on the Marconi Wireless to "level the playing field." But really, the right reaction would be to educate their voter base on this great new medium. I don't know if it would work, but I'm glad this sense of unfairness didn't result in opinion and discourse being subjected to the same regulations as advertising and fund raising. They're very different, and the latter two become empty manipulation without the first two.

When this first came up, I figured it was a lock that bloggers would get nailed (the FEC has a very colorful history of not understanding when technology is good and when technology is bad).

Re:Good news

[aeschenkarnos]

There's no reason they couldn't have the conservative equivalent of DailyKos, but it just wouldn't get read as much.

Free Republic? Little Green Footballs? WorldNetDaily?

Re:Good news

[Relic of the Future]

I'm as blue as the next /.er, but the politician who was most recently screaming to "level the playing field" was "censor-crat" Clinton (in the opposite direction from the one discussed in this story, of course).

Heaven knows I'll probably end up voting for her this go-around, but when it comes to technology and censorship, there's no political party (that has a chance of winning) that aligns with the /.-mindset.

Re:Good news

[cromar]

Don't forget http://powerlineblog.com/. My dad uses another one, too, but I can't recall it at the moment...

Re:Good news

[lucabrasi999]

Note: I am a die-hard liberal. But, I wouldn't confuse LGF, Michelle Malkin or World Net Dailys content with Kos. While Kos frequently rips on the opposition (just like the above sites) Kos also actively tries to organize the liberal base. He lists potential democratic candidates in each congressional district and puts in requests for fundraising and volunteers. In 2006, he was actively pushing for volunteers for the conservative democrats that won seats in North Carolina and other states.

That is very different than LGF, which usually just launches generic grenades and the 'evil liberal establishment' or blasts the New York Times for 'liberal bias'. When LGF and Hugh Hewitt start trying to recruit candidates for individual elections, and are successful at raising millions in small donor contributions to those candidates THEN I'll compare them to Kos.

Re:Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: I am a die-hard liberal. But, I wouldn't confuse LGF, Michelle Malkin or World Net Dailys content with Kos, because I don't agree with them.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Good news

[faloi]

I don't know about a reasonable downside, but I could see people using this judgment as ammunition against people calling for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Especially if they start talking about the "George Soros funded political machine" or whatever else is hot these days.

Re:Good news

[Achromatic1978]

Just today, the latest LGF troll: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=2693 1_Airplane_Accidents&only:

German Chair of of IPPNW Describes 9/11 Terror Attacks as 'Airplane Accidents'.

Interestingly, not one of nearly 200 comments even ponders whether this was imperfect use of English, from a non-native speaker... instead, no, he must be a Nazi. A "9/11 denier".

What a bunch of moronic pond scum.

Re:Good news

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's called Free Republic, it's been around since 1997 (5 years before DailyKOS), has nearly 3 times the monthly visitors (around 1 million unique people per month, versus 350K for dKOS), and is kind of the central "clearing house" for all threads/blogs Conservative.

The fact that FreeRupublic gets zero press, as compared to DailyKOS, is pretty telling about the media's awareness of the Conservative movement...

Re:Good news

[FleaPlus]

I think the bad feelings (and subsequent reactionary attempts at regulation) come from the fact that the conservative voter base tends to be a bit older and less Internet-savvy. Do you have any examples to support the belief that conservative bloggers support more internet regulation? Everything I've seen on the topic from them are very much against the FEC regulating political blogging.

There's no reason they couldn't have the conservative equivalent of DailyKos, but it just wouldn't get read as much. Instapundit.com has the same google ranking as DailyKos. There's also forums like freerepublic.com which have been around longer than Daily Kos and have a similar amount of traffic.

Re:Good news

[FleaPlus]

While Kos frequently rips on the opposition (just like the above sites) Kos also actively tries to organize the liberal base. He lists potential democratic candidates in each congressional district and puts in requests for fundraising and volunteers. From my observations, the left-wing sites like Kos's seem to focus more on organizing the liberal base in general, while right-wing and libertarian sites focus more on rallying specific issues. For example, there's things like Vets for Freedom (based around pro-war support) and Porkbusters (based around pork barrel funding). There's also the flurries that occur whenever some major journalistic funniness is going on, such as Rathergate or Reutersgate, or the Duke lacross/Nifong scandal.

Re:Good news

[Scrameustache]

when it comes to technology and censorship, there's no political party (that has a chance of winning) that aligns with the /.-mindset. All a party needs is the right candidate http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Technology

Re:Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of moronic pond scum.

The interview was in German. The German speaking person knew exactly what she (yes, she, you obviously didn't even bother to look at what you're whining about) was saying. It's also instructive to know that the channel the interview took place on has been flogging nearly every conspiracy theory from planned demolition to intentionally poor construction of the buildings as the reason it fell.

If you want to question it, find your nearest German-speaking person and ask them if they have a different words for crashing into something on accident and for ramming something intentionally.

But go ahead, tell the world about morons.

Re:Good news

[eck011219]

Indeed. To everyone who responded with lists of conservative blogs, I know of the biggies. But I didn't bring up DailyKos as the be-all, end-all (and given the reaction here, it was a poor choice for an example) -- I just think if you could count (which you can't, and I'm just going on a hunch here), you'd find a lot more small liberal blogs than small conservative blogs. I just think the average age of liberals is younger than that of conservatives -- not wrong or right, just how I suspect it is. And the young blog more than the old. So to the average conservative out there, it's going to feel like there are more liberal blogs than conservative ones.

I'm not trying to cast judgment -- I happen to be a liberal, but my original post was a genuine attempt to understand out loud some of the suspicion and irritation I've read among some conservatives. On my little personal blog, I have one conservative guy who comes around (he found me through a friend), and we have great conversations and debates and we respect each other a lot. To be honest, I get very excited when I see a post from him -- they're always artistically and brilliantly designed to make me defend my stance while never getting nasty. Sometimes I can defend my points and sometimes I can't, but he keeps me honest and I try to do the same on his blog (though I take a bit of a drubbing from his readers when I do -- he's got a lot more traffic and conservative views are the only focus of his blog).

I'd love for there to be more little blogs (liberal OR conservative OR Martian or whatever) where that kind of discourse can take place. Unfortunately, it seems like many of the ones I've checked out are mostly preaching to their own choir (this one guy aside, mine too). The froth factor is high -- people of like mind getting each other all boiled up about things they know they all commonly disagree with. But a lot of the little conservative ones I've read seem to have this undertone of feeling like they're alone in the universe. Just my experience -- it could be that I've lucked into reading the right combination of blogs to give me this impression. But that's how it seems to me -- there are just more liberals blogging than conservatives. I just think the vote-to-blog-reader/writer ratio is very different between liberals and conservatives. And I was suggesting that this could cause some feelings of threat/jealousy/indignation among conservatives, who (according to my home-grown logic) may be less represented on the Web.

But to suggest that the greater coverage of the DailyKos is an indication of the media's liberal bent? I disagree. DailyKos loudly disagrees with the current administration, which makes for really good sensationalist news bites (bytes?). If there was a liberal administration and it was being loudly denounced by a conservative blog, I bet it would get a bunch of press, too. Fights are good "news" (quotes very much intended as sarcastic finger quotes). As it stands, agreeing with whoever is in the White House makes for boring copy as far as the CNNs of the world are concerned.

Re:Good news

[tsotha]

Speaking as a former Republican (and still a conservative), I think this came up for two reasons.

• Big blogs are an obvious loophole in campaign finance laws. With no regulation they're extremely susceptable to astroturfing campaigns. If you're gonna limit other people's free speech (McCain-Feingold), then why not blogs?
• The resurrection of the "Fairness" doctrine by Democrats in Congress. It's pretty obviously a naked attempt to kill talk radio, which tends to be conservative. I could make the argument the fairness doctrine should apply to the internet if it applies to talk radio.

Having said that let me also say this is a good decision. As far as I know, this campaign finance stuff all started as a reaction to Watergate, but it's done nothing but make the situation worse. What we have now is a system where you can legally bribe a congressman through campaign donations, but you can't buy a political ad within six months of an election without going through a mountain of paperwork. The whole law should be scrapped. Should have been, in fact, thrown out by the courts.

I find abhorrent the idea one should have to register with the government before venturing an opinion on politics.

Re:Good news

[lucabrasi999]

From my observations, the left-wing sites like Kos's seem to focus more on organizing the liberal base in general, while right-wing and libertarian sites focus more on rallying specific issues.

Exactly what I was trying to say. I haven't found a GOP site that focuses on organizing the base. That doesn't mean there isn't one, I just haven't found one. If there isn't a site like that now, I can guarantee the GOP establishment will try to put one together before 2008.

Re:Good news

[lucabrasi999]

Lousy AC. Try to post under an ID next time. Maybe you should read my post and try to understand it before making your own post.

Re:Good news

[Relic of the Future]

The odds of Ron Paul winning his primary are approximately zero. Good luck to him though! If he does, somehow, miraculously, win, I might be tempted to vote Republican.

He, too, would benefit from a voting method that supported third candidates as viable alternatives.

Re:Good news

[Scrameustache]

The odds of Ron Paul winning his primary are approximately zero. He's telling the truth and speaking intelligently, that's not very popular with his party, but he's pulling in a lot of donations from individuals, so I wouldn't give him up for dead quite yet.

Re:Good news

[FleaPlus]

Exactly what I was trying to say. I haven't found a GOP site that focuses on organizing the base. Another thing is that the main rallying factor for many/most liberals is an opposition to Bush and his policies, which provides a basis for organizing the base. Those partial to the GOP seem to instead be focusing more on specific issues, and don't really have much of anything to unify behind. For the past few elections there was the whole "Moral Majority" social conservatism kind of thing, but most GOP-leaning bloggers tend to actually be fiscal conservatives and libertarians who are either agnostic about social conservatism or outright hostile towards it.

Re:Good news

[FleaPlus]

By the way, there was just a piece published in the Weekly Standard which covers many of the issues we've been discussing, titled The Lopsided Netroots: Why there's no conservative Kos.

I like this quote from Glenn Reynolds (the Instapundit):

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, the most widely read center-right blogger, amplifies Johnson's point. "Different needs produce different approaches," he says. "People on the right think their political machine works, but that the media is out to get them. Hence rightish blogging is more about punditry and reporting, and they've succeeded--note the paucity of lefty bloggers embedding in Iraq, while the number on the right is extensive enough that I can no longer name them all. People on the left, on the other hand, know the media is basically on their side, but feel that their political machine stinks, so they've focused on building a new one. And they've succeeded, too."

Re:Good news

[lucabrasi999]

Thanks for the link. Interesting read.

The right DOES have a strong political machine. With evangelicals, the conservatives can really get out the vote. The GOP machine completely overwhelmed the democratic machine in the 2004 election cycle. While Kos should get some credit for 2006, it should also be pointed out that historical trends work against the party in the President's Office during in 6th year elections AND the GOP had Iraq hanging over their heads last time around.

I think it is almost too late for the GOP to create a powerful organization in 2008. Many evangelicals are upset with the GOP. The conservative movement is in danger of splintering (GWB hass really angered fiscal conservatives). If they end up with a strong candidate for 2008, they still could win, but based on GOTV alone, I think the Dems hold the advantage (at least as of today).

REGULATE THIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

(_!_)

Re:REGULATE THIS!

[ScrewMaster]

Obviously, we're talking about an assroots movement here.

Why is this not YRO?

[treeves]

instead of politics? a lot of stuff goes under the category YRO when it isn't at all. This time it makes sense, but they don't put it there.

in-kind service?

[grassy_knoll]

From TFA:

The FEC said the blogger, Michael L. Grace, acted in the capacity of a volunteer and his blogging efforts did not constitute an ``in-kind service'' subject to financial disclosure rules.

Which seems to imply that if Kos had provided an in-kind service the ruling may have been different.

Also, from the FEC press release:

Since 1974, media activity has been explicitly exempted from federal campaign finance regulation. In March 2006, the Commission made clear that this exemption extends to online media publications and that "costs incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station. . . , Web site, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, including any Internet or electronic publication," are not a contribution or expenditure unless the facility is owned by a political party, committee, or candidate. With respect to MUR 5928, the FEC found that Kos Media meets the definition of a media entity and that the activity described in the complaint falls within the media exemption. Thus, activity on the DailyKos website does not constitute a contribution or expenditure that would trigger political committee status. The Commission therefore found no reason to believe Kos Media, DailyKos.com, or Markos Moulitsas Zuniga violated federal campaign finance law.

So, if a blogger is independant of a political organization ( or at least, doesn't get his bills paid for by a political organization ) said blogger isn't subject to campaign finance law.

Re:in-kind service?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which seems to imply that if Kos had provided an in-kind service the ruling may have been different.

Did you know Kos is often paid for his services?

The reason he endorses particular democratic candidates is that they pay him to do so.

Re:in-kind service?

[ISurfTooMuch]

Right. I think that the FEC wanted to make sure that they distinguished between a site like DailyKos receiving money through advertising as opposed to them receiving money or the equivalent from a political candidate or party. I think a muddier area would be if, say, the DNC placed a lot of ads on DailyKos. Now, would the site still be exempt? My guess is that it would, as long as its ad space was open to anyone, regardless of political affiliation. However, if the ads were a way for the DNC to funnel money to the site, then that might trigger a deeper examination.

I think this is one of those rare cases where a government body got things right. If the ruling had gone the other way, then you get into really nasty First Amendment territory. You could easily envision a situation where political discourse could be effectively banned from the Internet by applying campaign finance rules that would regulate it out of existence, and I think the FEC realized this.

Re:in-kind service?

[grassy_knoll]

Agreed. I'm still in shock that the decision seems rational ;)

Also, since paid-for bloggers ( by any political entity ) would seemingly have to be reported under campaign finance rules, this might make spotting astroturf easier.

BOY!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

come up to me like that boy and you just might get slapped BOY!!!!

I'm still waiting on one big political website

[CrazyJim1]

A website that works like Digg, but for political essays people write. Then with a greater sense of moderation rules, some writers will become popular while others slip into the abyss. I think a political website where anyone can be heard, and that the top dogs of the country are voted upon by readers, then finally a man of the masses could be elected to office instead of the man who gained campaign finances.

Re:I'm still waiting on one big political website

[bigstrat2003]

Wow, I was just strikingly reminded of Peter Wiggin when you said that. A prominent figure in the online debates who gets elected to power. Cool idea, to be sure.

Freedom of Expression

[paladinwannabe2]

Basically this is about our right to express political views on the internet without regulation. It deserves a 'politics' tag as well, I suppose, but it is a 'YRO' issue.

Look up the diaries on DailyKos

[apsmith]

On the right hand side of the main DailyKos page you'll see "recommended" diaries and "recent" diaries. Anybody can sign up to the site and write diaries (1 per day) - basically political essays (or on anything if you like). Get yourself recommended by other users, and you're there.

Media exemption?

[readin]

"an entity that would otherwise qualify for the media exemption"

Why does the "media" get an exemption? They have biases and vested interests. Freedom speech and the press is supposed to be for everyone, not just selected people who get "exemptions".

Re:Media exemption?

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, but if you arrogate the power to make exemptions to yourself, you have the power to make people beg you for them, and give you stuff.

dailykos.com is paid advertising...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason he endorses particular democratic candidates is that they pay him to do so, and he doesn't always disclose it.

That moves away from opinion & editorial to paid advertising. And there are rules on paid election advertising.

Troll? Are you kidding me?

[Prysorra]

Labeling such an informative comment as "troll" speak very poorly of the standards of moderation here. Sure, he could do with guts, but I'm willing to shed the "anonymous coward" for him.

This cuts both ways

[Raul654]

If Daily Kos is considered subject to regulation, then someone explain to me how that is materially different from Fox News? At least Daily Kos isn't deceitful in their partisanship, unlike Fox's pretensions of objectivity.

Re:This cuts both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News' second most popular program is a show that features both a conservative and a liberal commentator debating current issues. Show me where the Daily Kos has a conservative voice anywhere on their website.

If you had RTFA then you'd know that Daily Kos IS NOT subject to regulation anyway.

Re:This cuts both ways

[Raul654]

"Fox News' second most popular program is a show that features both a conservative and a liberal commentator debating current issues."

Fox's second most popular show is Hannity and Colmes. Calling it a liberal versus conservative show Fox's laughable disinformation.

Shawn Hannity is a loud-mouthed arch-conserative; Colms is a moderate. ("I think I'm quite moderate" - Alan Colmes to USA Today, 2/1/95). Or to paragraph Al Frankin, "Image a game of political see-saw with one person sitting on the far right end of the see-saw and someone sitting in the middle. See? That's fair and balanced on the Fox News channel"

Re:This cuts both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never seen the show. Alan Colmes is a "moderate" who takes a liberal position on each and every issue and always sides with the Democrat party. Colmes is employing a classic Democrat tactic in claiming to be a moderate even while always taking the liberal side. If he talks like a liberal, acts like a liberal, looks like a liberal and even smells like a liberal then he is not a moderate, he is a LIBERAL.

Re:This cuts both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: the vast majority of Democrats are not "liberal" by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:This cuts both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Hannity is a confident, overbearing, outgoing Conservative who always gets the last word.

Colmes is a timid, quiet, shy, insecure Liberal who Hannity could talk right over if they weren't friends, and if they didn't realize that their partnership is what makes the show successful on a Conservative news station.

Calling that Fair and Balanced is laughable. They want you to believe that the 2 represent the 2 sides of the political debate. Far from it.

Re:This cuts both ways

[rkanodia]

Also, the man in the middle of the see-saw is such a lightweight, you could swear he was made of straw.

Re:This cuts both ways

[tsotha]

Why single out Fox news? Last election cycle we had a major network try to smear a sitting president with false documents a month before the election. If that isn't partisan behavior, I don't know what is. What about PBS? Have you ever seen "NOW"? What is the conservative counterpart?

Re:This cuts both ways

[Raul654]

Fox deserves to be singled out because the other major news outlets, including CBS, make an honest effort to be objective and non-partisan. (The fact that CBS aired a false story is significant because it is a rare occurrence; on the other hand, Fox does it on a daily basis and it's become so commonplace that it barely even registers in the media) The major media outlets may not be perfect, but they do a pretty good job of making sure they report the truth. Fox, on the other hand, is quite transparently a front for the Republican National Committee, and make no effort to be objective or non-partisan.

Re:This cuts both ways

[tsotha]

Fox deserves to be singled out because the other major news outlets, including CBS, make an honest effort to be objective and non-partisan.

They make an effort to appear non-partisan. That's true. But there's no way an objective observer would think they actually are. Last election cycle the non-Fox networks pulled out all the stops for Kerry. And it's true the CBS story is a rare occurrence, but only in that they were caught.

I think this is all a question of perspective. There's no way you could ever convince me NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and virtually all the print media don't have a leftward bias. I can see it for myself. But that's the difference - I'm willing to admit Fox has a rightward bias, whereas the fact that the rest electronic media establishment is overwhelmingly liberal is somehow news to people on the left.

Re:This cuts both ways

[jlanthripp]

Pssst...if you're trying to point out conservative bias at Fox, it's probably not a good idea to use George Soros, er, Media Matters as your source. It's a pot/kettle thing, you know.

Re:This cuts both ways

[sholden]

Can you not see the difference between:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. -- http://mediamatters.org/about_us/

Fair and Balanced - trademarked slogan of Fox News.

Bias is not bad in and of itself, as long as it is prominently disclosed.

Re:This cuts both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point. Fox says "we are conservative" and reports and editorializes accordingly. CBS, CNN, et all say "we are completely objective" and do not report and editorialize accordingly.

Try again.

Re:This cuts both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the conservative counterpart?

Who gives a fuck? Who in the hell said the Bushie fucks can't build and operate their own rightie tv station? That's the answer they always give when liberals complain about Rush or any of the other shrieking druggie bastards on right-wing talk radio. Remember, asshole, the fairness doctrine went out long ago. If you don't believe it, watch FOX.

Re:This cuts both ways

[jlanthripp]

Fair and Balanced doesn't mean unbiased. It means just what it says. They have Sean Hannity, but they also have Alan Colmes. They have Bill O'Reilly, but they also have Geraldo Rivera. And so forth. They at least pay lip service to both sides of the fence when they butcher a story, unlike CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Times-Picayune, the Boston Herald, and USA Today, who claim a lack of bias while presenting the news with as much leftward spin as they think they can without the average Joe catching on.

Re:This cuts both ways

[sholden]

Hannity and Colmes isn't balance though. It's a huge rightward slant. Since the "left" person is significantly more "center" than the "right" person. Hence it isn't balanced. There's also the issue of the oratory/debating/voice level skills of each side...

Everyone else knows what "Fair and Balanced" is supposed to suggest, and what it does in fact suggest. You can live in your fantasy world.

The obvious point is that Fox is claiming fairness and balance, whereas the other group was not.

Re:This cuts both ways

[jlanthripp]

Hell, if Alan Colmes were to lean any further left, he'd fall over on top of his hammer and sickle. Then again, "balance" is a matter of perspective.

1. You're a socialist (just ask anyone to your right), so anything to the right of you seems like right wing slant to you.

2. I'm a fascist (just ask anyone to my left), so anything to the left of me seems like left wing slant to me.

3. Neither 1 nor 2 matter in the grand scheme of things. We probably disagree massively on just about every policy point out there, but I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that we can come together on certain basic principles. That's what's really important.

Re:Correction that Websense should have given

[sethstorm]

Just look what they accomplished in '06. Nothing. People with already closed minds
attack Kos. Fixed for you.

Re:FOX attacks bloggers

[sethstorm]

No surprise given they use one of the far right's own closed minds as a bully pulpit on Friday.

not quite Fair and Balanced

[charlieo88]

Fox News doesn't know whether to sputter in outrage or heave a sigh of relief.

Right on.

[headkase]

Now when your slinging mud if you have facts to back you up, you can democratically exercise your right to participate in the process. If your mud makes it to Wikileaks then you can be rest assured that the scumballs will eventually be weeded out by the voices of citizens. I'm trying to hit all those words that seem to have lost their meanings in recent years - suggestions on any I missed?

Re:Troll? Are you kidding me?

[Austerity Empowers]

You're right, but I can understand the confusion. He's claiming that the DailyKos is receiving compensation for their advertising, although TFA suggests the FEC is ruling only against "free media coverage".

I suspect if the DailyKos is receiving actual money from it's candidates, it's no longer exempt.

What would have clearly moved this out of the troll category is some substantiation to the claim that this is a paid advertiser, not a volunteer. Plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum believe (or have benefit in believing) the nonsense that they're more than willing to do this sort of thing for free.

Looming double-standard?

[Loopy]

From the FEC statement: 'While the complaint asserts that DailyKos advocates for the election of Democrats for federal office, the commission has repeatedly stated that an entity that would otherwise qualify for the media exemption does not lose its eligibility because it features news or commentary lacking objectivity or expressly advocates in its editorial the election or defeat of a federal candidate.'"

Hmm...let's see if they'll apply this to talk radio as well.

Abuse of power

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good development that everyone should be happy with. If bloggers become regulated the question becomes who decides what is political and what it not? This hold the potential for massive abuse of power. And we all know that it would become a problem. Look at the problems people have with George Bush: Dead soldiers, free speech zones, etc. And there is no reason to believe that the next president (dem. or rep.) wont do the same thing.

You can already see it happening right now. No one cares about restoring checks and balances. They whine and complain about the President having too much power, but once their party gets the power they will not give it up. As a result more and more power will be in less and less hands, the only thing that will change is who's hands (and I will give you a hint it wont be the people).

Here, let me re-slant that for you:

[MoodyLoner]

"Despite complaints that Fox News should be subject to campaign finance laws since they are donating huge amounts of money in the form of advertising and media services to candidates, the FEC will not regulate Fox News. From the FEC statement: 'While the complaint asserts that Fox News advocates for the election of Republicans for federal office, the commission has repeatedly stated that an entity that would otherwise qualify for the media exemption does not lose its eligibility because it features news or commentary lacking objectivity or expressly advocates in its editorial the election or defeat of a federal candidate.'"

Yes, that's unfair of me. Daily Kos doesn't deserve to be compared to Fox News.

Re:Here, let me re-slant that for you:

[MoodyLoner]

And naturally, by the time I post this six people have made the same point, and better.

This would be why I post to Slashdot once a month now.

Semantics of mainstream media

[moogyboog]

These people claim to be unbiased or balanced as opposed to unblanced? In other words we say we are sane...we say you are losers. That's the mainstream opinion of the bloggers, mostly since they expect and maintain priority over what is news. Maybe the FCC recognizes the fallacy of "unbiased" information. Whoever decides the story decides the debate, why on earth should a centralized media system command control over a decentralized international system? Bottom line they can't control the world and they were trying to implement some kind of control over ideas that are political.

Re:Troll? Are you kidding me?

[Pentavirate]

I'm just as conservative as the next slashdotter (I had to say it), but there really shouldn't be any laws against this type of "payola". Who cares if someone gets paid for their opinions or not. Who cares is someone gets paid and changes their opinion because of it. If the arguments are sound, does it really matter if the person making the arguments really believes them or not?

All of this "campaign finance regulation" is a joke. Money doesn't buy campaigns. If it did, Steve Forbes would be president right now. The federal government should stop limiting free speech by removing the limit on campaign donations and giving out "media exemptions" and all the rest.

Tesla!

[Scrameustache]

the Marconi Wireless Ok, so you're mocking old conservatives, but still, this is a pet peeve of mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio

Also in the case of a presidential election

[Sycraft-fu]

A serious third party contender actually brings up the risk of congress deciding the election. If you check the Constitution, you find that to win a presidential election, a candidate must receive a majority of the electoral votes. Now some people think "majority" means "most". It doesn't in this context, actually, it means more than 50%. Currently, that's 270 electoral votes. If nobody gets 270 or more it doesn't go back for a second try or anything like that, rather the electoral vote isn't what decides the president. Instead, the House of Representatives elects the president, and the Senate elects the vice president.

Yes, really, it's happened twice before.

Well when there's only two candidates, it is extremely likely one will get a majority of votes. Since there is an even number of electors it is possible for a split EC, but that's quite unlikely. However with a serious third contender, it becomes much more possible. The third contender doesn't have to be more popular than the two others, just popular enough to grab some electoral votes.

For example suppose you have a race with the typical Democrat and Republican, but also a non-crazy Libertarian (I know, seems to be an impossibility). The Republican is the more popular than the Democrat, but only by a small margin. Let's say it would work like the 2004 election and result in a 286-252 win for the Republican. However the Libertarian manages to woo some of the fiscal conservatives to his side instead. Not very many, but enough to win Arizona, Kentucky and South Dakota. Now instead it's a 267-252-19 setup. The Republican has the most votes, but it isn't enough. Nobody wins, and it goes to Congress to decide.

As such at a presidential level, it's extremely stacked for a two party system. On other levels where it's a pure popular, who ever gets the most gets the job system, it is easier and indeed third party candidates to win from time to time. But it's a real problem in the presidential election. I mean look at how wound up people got about a president winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote (also has happened before). Think the fury a congressional election would generate.

Re:Also in the case of a presidential election

[myth24601]

As such at a presidential level, it's extremely stacked for a two party system. On other levels where it's a pure popular, who ever gets the most gets the job system, it is easier and indeed third party candidates to win from time to time. But it's a real problem in the presidential election. I mean look at how wound up people got about a president winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote (also has happened before).

Both of Bill Clinton's victories were like this. Ross Perrot won enough of the popular vote to keep Clinton from winning a popular majority but Clinton still won a very decisive electoral majority. I think this helped add more legitimacy to his win.

Re:Also in the case of a presidential election

[falconwolf]

For example suppose you have a race with the typical Democrat and Republican, but also a non-crazy Libertarian (I know, seems to be an impossibility).

It's most likely the Libertarian will be the sanest candidate, and the best. Democrats want control, Republicans want control, but Libertarians will give power back to the people.

Let's say it would work like the 2004 election and result in a 286-252 win for the Republican. However the Libertarian manages to woo some of the fiscal conservatives to his side instead.

Of course, by the tyme Nixon was in office, the Republican Party lost it's roots as a party of small government and liberty. That being so some Republicans left the party and started the Libertarian Party. However not all Libertarians came from the Republican Party, some were Democrats first, they then became Libertarian. I was one, when I first voted I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980. In 1984, though I don't recall who it was I most likely voted Democrat too. But in 1988 I became active in the election, I was deputized to register voters, and learned about Ron Paul who was the Libertarian candidate. The more I learned the more I liked Libertarians. I am registered No Party Preference but more than likely if there's a Libertarian candidate I'll vote for him or her. Otherwise I've voted for Democrats and Republicans, and Reform Party candidates. I vote fiscally conservative and socially liberal, ie for small government and liberty, which is what the USA was based on (supposedly).

Falcon

Re:Also in the case of a presidential election

[bigpat]

As such at a presidential level, it's extremely stacked for a two party system. On other levels where it's a pure popular, who ever gets the most gets the job system, it is easier and indeed third party candidates to win from time to time. But it's a real problem in the presidential election. I mean look at how wound up people got about a president winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote (also has happened before). Think the fury a congressional election would generate. Most State elections are also very stacked towards a two party system. Where the two parties have primaries to weed out their candidates, leaving the rest to be seen as spoilers in a general election. It is essentially true, because it is designed that way, a third party or independent candidate can split the majority vote and lead to candidates with less popular positions getting elected. It has led to people resigning themselves to either voting Republican or Democrat or not voting at all, not because they don't care, but because the two-parties don't represent them, but the system won't allow a third party.

Really all we can do is bitch about it in blogs and keep our options open in case our unrepresentative government gets too eager.

Ultimately though, I think most people that get elected are Patriots and once enough people realize how unrepresentative our "Democracy" is they will choose to do something about it such as instituting a run-off balloting system or instant run-off elections which allow for more real choices without people having to waste their votes.

Re:Also in the case of a presidential election

[Relic of the Future]

I've been thinking about that. I think, then, that the best way to attack the problem is to start from the bottom, and work up toward pressident.

Begin by using Condorcet methods with you coworkers to decide where to go for lunch. Then local elections; schoolboard, PTA, town council, mayor. And on up the chain; representative to state house; representative to US house; governor; US senate. Get people used to the idea slowly, don't shock them by going straight for pressident.

Re:Also in the case of a presidential election

[msouth]

mod parent up. that's a very good idea. Same thing applies to libertarianism.

Mod Parent Up...

[Penguinisto]

If I had one I'd certainly drop it off here.

Partisanship, Fox-hatred and left v. right wing BS arguments aside, at least Fox News does go out of their way to provide two opposing viewpoints, and it seems rather popular. Sure, folks will immediately scream about Colmes' "moderate" tag, but honestly, that's nothing more than spin on Colmes' part (so as to paint his opposite as "extreme").

I have yet to see a credible truly-moderate opinionator (why? because 'beige' simply doesn't attract the attention that red or blue does, ne?) So please, let's dispense with any such notion that Colmes (or Kos, or whomever of any political stripe) is "moderate" - it's a strawman argument, to put it charitably.

Kos is nothing more than a prettified version of the Democratic Underground, IMHO. I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of left-leaning money being fed to his site, just as I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of right-leaning money being fed to his opposite counterparts' sites.

Both sides have their shills; both sites exist to feed the confirmation biases of their respective True Believers(TM, pat. pending).

That said, I wish everyone luck in removing the political money-laundering that accompanies sites like Kos. His income (again, like that from various others of either side) is likely funneled through a series of front organizations and companies who essentially parallel a given party's agendae (e.g. George Soros' funding of various 'grass-roots' events).

If you want to seriously remove political money from such events, then have the gov't set up a series of servers, where any political party can have equal bandwidth and space to proclaim whatever political theories turn them on (in a limited but equally accessible set of formats - text and image/multimedia files under a certain size, ferinstance). Sort of like a "Speakers' Corner" of sorts. It's not like they can't afford it or anything.

/P

Re:Mod Parent Up...

[Raul654]

"Partisanship, Fox-hatred and left v. right wing BS arguments aside, at least Fox News does go out of their way to provide two opposing viewpoints, and it seems rather popular."

This is bull shit of the most dangerous kind. It was Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister, who said that the key to a successful propaganda campaign is to give the appearance of diversity, while at the same time making sure that all media venues convey the same basic message. This is the essence of framing the debate. You take a moderate, call him a liberal, and voilà - you've manufactured diversity where, in fact, none exists. Meanwhile, people who truly disagree never get heard. Nor is this just an accident. They intentionally select weak voiced, barely (if at all) left-of-center people.

But don't take my word for it. Just read the transcript from Outfoxed. According to former Fox News producer Clara Frenk: And the first thing that I noticed was that I recognized all of the conservatives who were in the roster. They were very well known people who had come from, you know, talk radio or from some sort of political background, and so I knew all of those people, and they were very, very strong people... But when I looked at the liberal roster, there was only one person's name who I recognize, which I recognized, and that was Bob Shrum, who is a very well known speechwriter and political consultant in Washington. The other ones, though, were people I had never heard of. My entire background was in politics and political journalism, so I knew pretty much all the players in D.C. and I had never heard of these people... A lot of the times the liberals that they get to appear on are either, you know, faux-liberals, like, I would use Susan Estrich as an example of that, a person who was brought on, who essentially agrees with the person on the right in a lot of cases."

Re:Mod Parent Up...

[Penguinisto]

This is bull shit of the most dangerous kind. It was Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister, who said that the key to a successful propaganda campaign is to give the appearance of diversity, while at the same time making sure that all media venues convey the same basic message.[/quote]

Godwin's Law aside, no, it isn't "Framing", esp. based on one partisan writer's opinion (insider or not...) the cite you provided illustrates perfectly the confirmation bias that I mentioned earlier ("outfoxed.org"? a former (fired? disgruntled?) employee? I mean, c'mon... that's not exactly an unbiased or objective authority you've got there).

Incidentally, I could just as easily sink to the same level and claim that CNN is really 'liberal' and that Glenn Beck is merely a part of CNN's 'frame'. That said, I refuse to make such a comparison; CNN, like Fox, is just another cable news channel - nothing more.

[quote]They intentionally select weak voiced, barely (if at all) left-of-center people.[/quote]

You're trying to make an objective statement out of subjective criteria here: "barely (if at all)" ...according to whom?

This is exactly what I'm talking about here... you make several terribly bad assumptions that are heavily colored by your own ideology as "facts". I won't even touch the fevered Nazi reference. It ends up fueling a self-perpetuating outrage that eventually consumes your every thought concerning politics.

Man - I categorically refuse to participate in such things anymore. :/

/P

Re:Mod Parent Up...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you won't reach for that. It's what most of the political dialogue is on this site. I very truthfully applaud you.

Re:Mod Parent Up...

[Shotgun]

"Partisanship, Fox-hatred and left v. right wing BS arguments aside, at least Fox News does go out of their way to provide two opposing viewpoints, and it seems rather popular."

This is bull shit of the most dangerous kind. It was Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister, who said that the key to a successful propaganda campaign is to give the appearance of diversity, while at the same time making sure that all media venues convey the same basic message.

Except that Fox is not "all media venues".

The problem I see is that most people don't know the difference between commentary and news. A bunch of talking heads spewing their opinions is NOT news. Not on Fox. Not on CBS. And not anywhere else. News is almost exclusively limited to what comes over the AP wire, and that is reported word-for-word across all the stations. You always know what the real news is, because you'll hear the same phrases rattled off from multiple 'reporters' and printed in the newspaper. I often find that these stories are leftward leaning, but I readily admit that is because I'm more conservative. I find the liberal bias somewhat grating, whereas the conservative bias goes by unnoticed.

Now, Goebbels statement goes both ways. If there is a liberal bias, and has been for a LONG time, how would you know? For that matter, what is the measuring stick you use for liberal/conservative?

This Shows the Law is Unconstitutional

[bxwatso]

If the Daily Kos is protected speech, then Rush Limbaugh is protected speech (and I think both should be). What about Bill Moyers? He largely advocates liberal causes on TV.

Now, what if I bought a billboard that said "Vote Libertarian," which is what the back of my iPod says? What is the difference except that the Daily Kos buys electrons to send its message and I buy ink molecules? The intent is the same.

Now, what is the real difference if a friend and I pool our money together to buy the billboard? That is the exercise of my right to free association and assembly. That is prohibited by this horrible law.

The whole McCain Feingold law is a slippery slope to collectivism (same as Stalinism, Nazism, Democrats, Republicans at different temperatures). McCain is especially an enemy of the Constitution, and it is a shame the Supreme Court didn't throw out the whole mess. Indeed, McCain Feingold is a brassy effort to silence the critics of incumbent candidates.

Re:This Shows the Law is Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, what if I bought a billboard that said "Vote Libertarian," which is what the back of my iPod says? What is the difference except that the Daily Kos buys electrons to send its message and I buy ink molecules? The intent is the same.

You've got it all wrong. The problem isn't that Markos is paying money to put out his opinion, Dailykos sells favorable coverage to candidates. His opinion is for sale.

And when a candidate pays money to get the message out, there are rules & regulations to follow.

DailyKos even admits that he sells favorable coverage.

OK, screwheads, listen up!

[Loopy]

Did you RTFA? They are NOT subjecting DailyKos to campaign regulations, expressly stating that simply favoring a political viewpoint is not sufficient grounds to revoke their media exemption. So, no, FoxNews wouldn't be regulated either, even IF confirming the existence of a conservative viewpoint made you a de facto right-wing supporter. /sigh Allow me to paste in the relevant portions from the FEC article for the TLDR crowd:

The Commission determined that the website falls squarely within the media exemption and is therefore not subject to federal regulation under the Act.

Since 1974, media activity has been explicitly exempted from federal campaign finance regulation. In March 2006, the Commission made clear that this exemption extends to online media publications and that "costs incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or editorial by any broadcasting station. . . , Web site , newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, including any Internet or electronic publication," are not a contribution or expenditure unless the facility is owned by a political party, committee, or candidate.

Re:FOX attacks bloggers

[rossz]

there is a General Strike called for tuesday, 9/11/07. Join and help change things like this.

I'll join in by going to work first, then by doing a bit of shopping afterwards. If there's a "Support our Troops" march, I'll sure to join into that.

Vote No Next Election

[Shihar]

I wont bother with stating my political beliefs to avoid the left/right flame war, but sufficient to say I loath both democrats and republicans. I don't have minor issues with the candidates; I have large ideological divides with all of them. I am pretty sure I am not alone.

What do I do election day? I vote. I vote because not voting doesn't separate you from the lazy bastard with no opinion who can't part with an hour of his time once every 2 years. Such people are not worthwhile for politicians to court and you don't want to be associated with them. Instead of voting for someone you loath just slightly less then the alternative, I suggest simply voting no. Walk into the polling station and in the blank field, write in "none of the above" and check it. Is "none of the above" going to win? Probably not. You can even simply hand in a blank ballot. If more people were to do this, than there would start to be noticeable discrepancies between the number of people who voted, and the number of people who voted for one of the two choices. Make this discrepancy large enough, and you might start turning heads. Politicians would see groups of people who are pissed, but not so apathetic that they won't vote.

Unless you live in a state that is so close that it is too close to call, your vote for 'anyone but that other guy' isn't going to do any good. Spend your vote sending a message, not padding or not even denting Hillary's lead in Connecticut or Julian's lead in Texas. If the electoral point in your state is already a foregone conclusion, spend your vote to voice your displeasure. A 4% 'none of the above vote' would mean a hell of a lot more than one candidate already destine to win by a 10% marine gaining or losing that 5%.

Re:Vote No Next Election

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

loath both democrats and republicans. I don't have minor issues with the candidates; I have large ideological divides with all of them. I am pretty sure I am not alone.

No, but I think you'll be lonely. There's plenty of people who don't share a large ideological divide, and the fact that the main political candidates' policies aren't compatible with yours likely means that a majority of people don't agree with you. After all, a politician wouldn't be very good at his job if he didn't do what the people want, right?

You can even simply hand in a blank ballot. If more people were to do this, than there would start to be noticeable discrepancies between the number of people who voted, and the number of people who voted for one of the two choices. Make this discrepancy large enough, and you might start turning heads. Politicians would see groups of people who are pissed, but not so apathetic that they won't vote.

OK, let's say for argument's sake that you succeed in rallying people to "vote no" at the next elections, and you manage to get a million or two to do so, that doesn't mean that politicians will start pandering to you. In doing so, they'd probably alienate larger sections of the electorate. Also, a group like that won't have uniform opinions, so it isn't really possible to pander to you.

Slashdot Will Regulate Flag Striping

[Anonymous Coward]

"Due to complaints that flag stripes should be subject to campaign finance laws since they are donating huge amounts of money in the form of advertising and media services to candidates, Slashdot will regulate flag striping. From Taco's statement: 'While the complaint asserts that trolls advocate the use of a flag with the correct number of stripes, the editors have repeatedly stated that an entity that would otherwise use a gif with the correct number of stripes would lose its eligibility to post stories because it features a flag lacking objectivity or expressly advocates in its editorial the use or disuse of a certain flag.'"

Number of readers? Advertising income?

[falconwolf]

Sounds like the newspaper.

Falcon

Re:Troll? Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect if the DailyKos is receiving actual money from it's candidates, it's no longer exempt.

What would have clearly moved this out of the troll category is some substantiation to the claim that this is a paid advertiser, not a volunteer.

Kos has even admitted it. What more do you want?

political parties

[falconwolf]

Make the bar to get on the ballet high enough to discourage lunatics (say 100K for a non-incumbent, 20K for past office holders of same level (state/federal/etc.), 10K for incumbents).

In other words lock out third political parties. I'm sure both Democrats and Republicans would love that.

Falcon

primaries

[falconwolf]

or at least make the primaries like in NH where anyone can vote for anyone regardless of party.

That's a start but repealing Amendment 12 would have a dramatic effect. By going back to how the president and vice president were chosen I think would have a big impact. Off course neither the Democrats nor Republicans would approve of it, they want their candidates to run as a team and not run against each other. That's why they passed the amendment to begin with. They didn't want the chance the president was from one party and the vp from another.

Falcon

Personally...

[jd]

I would prefer a rule that stated that bloggers who specifically blogged on political matters for the demonstrable purpose of astroturfing were subject to campaign finance laws, but that all bloggers who acted as political correspondents or debaters should be given the same protections and immunities as any other political commentator or journalist. Instead of having no law, which can always be abused because there is equally no explicit protection, have a sensible set of ranges which are either protected or restricted, and THEN define anything else as undefined. Laws for protection are perhaps more important in this debate than laws on restriction.

Re:Personally...

[falconwolf]

I would prefer a rule that stated that bloggers who specifically blogged on political matters for the demonstrable purpose of astroturfing were subject to campaign finance laws, but that all bloggers who acted as political correspondents or debaters should be given the same protections and immunities as any other political commentator or journalist.

And who's going to decide what's what, you? What may be astroturfing to you may be legitimate to someone else. All this would do is shutdown legitimate political dialogue.

Falcon

Re:Personally...

[jd]

That, sadly, is one of the greatest problems with content that has neither protection nor restriction. Someone, somewhere, WILL decide what is acceptable and what is not, and they will do so in a totally closed, totally partisan, totally self-serving manner. Political bloggers and (honest) investigative bloggers absolutely have to be protected against such people. Equally, there will also be people who use the medium to slander, libel, harass, abuse, spam, etc.

Discourse is only possible if the signal-to-noise ratio exceeds the critical threshold. Once you fall below that threshold, the medium will die. There are only two variables to consider - the signal (ie: actual bloggers of the political or investigative kind) and the noise (ie: those who have the conscious, deliberate, purposeful intent to kill the signal).

It is my opinion that the only possible option is to protect that which is definitely signal against any possible consequences, and to prohibit that which is definitely noise. Essentially, a legal version of the USENET Death Sentence of old with some journalistic protections.

Ok, so your question is who gets to decide what is what. My argument is that if you need to have someone do the deciding, it's the grey area in between. Leave it alone. If society is so unsure about something that it needs to have an individual pick an answer, then society probably has no business framing the question. It is the stuff that is so clear-cut that it is unambiguous that you can categorize, where an overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming - 99%+) majority of people - whether in a given part of the political spectrum or across the board - totally agree that something is in the public interest or is a deliberate attempt to kill the public's right to have interests.

"But that would never happen!" Maybe so. Maybe the upper and lower bands will always have zero size. I say that is for the public to decide, not some Government quango. If the public decides that there is nothing that must absolutely be protected or be absolutely prevented, then the public has made its voice heard. If it does place things in those categories, then no Government has the right to deny its citizens the ability to make such choices, for good or ill.

The Government has no right to choose on this issue, and that includes the right not to choose. There have been far too many abuses of the political system - whether denial of protection to whistleblowers, or denial of relief against extremist frauds - to allow the Government any further decisions in this matter. It is long past time that those who stand to gain the most from the status quo be given the least say in whether the status quo is maintained. Placing politicians in charge of political discussion is like placing organized crime in charge of the department of justice. You can't seriously imagine they'd make decisions in your favour, do you?

Nor can decisions be allowed to be placed in the hands of special interest groups, corporations, the media, or any other non-representitive group. The mafia are said to have bought one election, the Swift Boaters probably bought another -- either that or Diebold did. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable conduct in a civilized society. If you want to live in the stone age, there are plenty of other countries that are still there that you can live in.

So long as America claims to be civilized, then certain rights must be inalienable. Rights, not permissions, and as long as your only safeguard is other people looking the other way, all you have is permissions. That is not good enough.

Re:Troll? Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect if the DailyKos is receiving actual money from it's candidates, it's no longer exempt.

What would have clearly moved this out of the troll category is some substantiation to the claim that this is a paid advertiser, not a volunteer.

Nothing wrong with paid advertising, provided it is clearly labelled as advertising.

Dailykos takes money for favorable coverage in its articles. Kos even admits it.

Re:Troll? Are you kidding me?

[Austerity Empowers]

That link might have saved you a -1, Troll...at least if I were the moderator. That changes your post from inane ranting to something based on fact. Like a lot of people, I don't read Slate. Slashdot posters seem to assume we all read the same trash as each other and we're on the same page.

On the other hand, what they were discussing was not Howard Dean, but this complaint: http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocs/000061C1.pdf
I tend to agree with their decision, in absence of the information you provided in that link. With it taken together, I suspect they really ARE overstepping their bounds. Why not write your own complaint? Assuming you would do the same if it were a right-wing website taking money for activism. (i.e. because you believe in the rules, not because you want to smackdown the lefty)

I'm not really sure how I feel about those rules. Wealthy people have wealthy friends, all who act together to scratch each others backs in ways that don't cause money to change hands in regulated ways. The little guy still gets screwed.

Bullshit

[beamin]

The networks pulled out all the stops for Kerry? Then why the hell did they continually parrot the lies of the Swift Boaters? You wouldn't know truth if you tripped over it; you sure as hell won't hear it flying out of your own mouth.

Re:Bullshit

[tsotha]

First of all, they ignored the Swift Boat vets as long as they could. Secondly, they were not lies. There's a reason Kerry let the all the deadlines for filing a defamation suit lapse - he knew that not only were they telling the truth, but with access to his service records they could prove it.

left, right, or center

[falconwolf]

Most people hang out in the political middle, so a 3rd party that caters to the far left (like the Greens) or the far right (like the Libertarians)

This needs a correction, the Libertarian Party is in the center. It is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It's perceptions like this where many make a mistake in saying the Libertarians are to the right.

Falcon

Rush Limbuagh

[falconwolf]

I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh on AM radio every day on my drive home from school. This was during Clinton's second term

I listened to him a lot during Clinton's first term and I'd get a kick off of how he twisted facts around. However it's not just on the right that commentators twist facts, those on the right do too. Actually I'd bet most people do.

Falcon

third parties and candidates

[falconwolf]

That's the "spoiler" effect that put Bill Clinton into office in 1992 and George Bush into office in 2000. I find it hard to believe many people who voted for Nader in 2000 would have chosen Bush over Gore. Given the election was so close it's hard to argue against the stipulation "Ralph Nader elected George Bush".

In 2000 I was planning to vote for a third party candidate, I hadn't made up my mind but I was going to vote for either Harry Brown or Ralph Nader. However when I saw how close the election was going to be I specifically voted against Bush by checking Gore, on the ballet. However Bush's brother and Florida campaign manager made sure he won Florida giving him the win. I felt though bad Gore would be better than Bush, and the last six years have verified my belief.

So it's not hard to understand why lots of people refuse to support third parties. Personally I'd rather the US had some kind of parliamentary system, where I could vote for the party that most represents my views. But that just isn't going to happen, barring some extraordinary event.

Who you vote for is up to you. With the exception of the 2000 vote I've voted for the person who came the closest to holding my political beliefs. I've voted Democrat, Green, Independent, Libertarian, non affiliated, Reform, and republican candidates. I prefer to do my own thinking and not have a party dictate it to me. As for what governmental system I'd rather have, I'd rather have one that's small government. Let people decide for themselves and not have government controlling them.

Falcon

ABCNBCCBSMSNBSCNNPBSBBC

[Anonymous Coward]

"because it features news or commentary lacking objectivity or expressly advocates in its editorial the election or defeat of a federal candidate"

Guess they have nothing to fear.

Clinton

[falconwolf]

Heaven knows I'll probably end up voting for her this go-around

If I get the chance I'll vote for Ron Paul, I'll have to wait to see who the candidates are before I decide. But it won't be the Socialist Clinton.

Falcon

problems with both parties

[falconwolf]

sufficient to say I loath both democrats and republicans. I don't have minor issues with the candidates; I have large ideological divides with all of them. I am pretty sure I am not alone.

Same here, you're not alone.

Falcon

Speech

[falconwolf]

f a blogger is independant of a political organization ( or at least, doesn't get his bills paid for by a political organization ) said blogger isn't subject to campaign finance law.

As much as I may hate what some say, applying political speech to campaign finance laws is an abridgment of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech, said freedom meant specifically for political speech. Afterall it was while Thomas Paine was serving in the army under Gen Washington that he wrote "These are the times that tries men's souls." Unlike many other pamphleteers who wrote anonymously Thomas Paine wrote under his own name.

Falcon

Just because it is not unbias...

[Damastus the WizLiz]

This was actualy motivated by a large payment from fox news as they would also lose their press status if strictly being unbias was enough to disqualify.

We Need DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground

[Anonymous Coward]

They remind us daily of how bigoted, small-minded, and racist the modern Democratic party has become.

Thanks for providing this valuable public service Markos!

Then tax ALL political organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

The Christian Coalition claims they put George Bush in the White House. If they are going to tax bloggers, then they better start taxing churches and religious (?) organizations that allow candidates and political parties to campaign, fund-raise and recruit volunteers.

legal speech

[falconwolf]

That, sadly, is one of the greatest problems with content that has neither protection nor restriction. Someone, somewhere, WILL decide what is acceptable and what is not, and they will do so in a totally closed, totally partisan, totally self-serving manner. Political bloggers and (honest) investigative bloggers absolutely have to be protected against such people. Equally, there will also be people who use the medium to slander, libel, harass, abuse, spam, etc.

There's not much a person can do about spam other than not use the net, but a person can bring civil proceedings against someone else for these others. Of course anyone pursuing such a remedy has be able to afford it, then they have to prove it was malicious. However to change this just requires making it easier to win a case though civil lawsuits already are easier than criminal cases to win. This is because unlike a criminal case where guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil case all that's needed is a preponderance of guilt. OJ won the criminal case but lost the civil case because of this.

Ok, so your question is who gets to decide what is what. My argument is that if you need to have someone do the deciding, it's the grey area in between. Leave it alone. If society is so unsure about something that it needs to have an individual pick an answer, then society probably has no business framing the question. It is the stuff that is so clear-cut that it is unambiguous that you can categorize, where an overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming - 99%+) majority of people - whether in a given part of the political spectrum or across the board - totally agree that something is in the public interest or is a deliberate attempt to kill the public's right to have interests.

Which brings back my question of how anyone can tell whether someone is legitimate or is astroturfing. One of my favorite professors in college, I had her for philosophy, Understanding Religious Man, and some humanities classes, played a mean devil's advocate. We'd be discussing something and she'd leave a person to believe she actually held the position she took. Then the following class she could take the opposite position and have the same effect. Because of her ability nobody actually knew where she stood. A friend of mine interned under her and she didn't even know.

Re:legal speech

[jd]

Which brings back my question of how anyone can tell whether someone is legitimate or is astroturfing. One of my favorite professors in college, I had her for philosophy, Understanding Religious Man, and some humanities classes, played a mean devil's advocate. We'd be discussing something and she'd leave a person to believe she actually held the position she took. Then the following class she could take the opposite position and have the same effect. Because of her ability nobody actually knew where she stood. A friend of mine interned under her and she didn't even know.

Sure. I know people like that - they usually run the companies I end up working for. This is why the framework can't be left to individuals and why any boundaries must be so utterly clear-cut and so utterly outside of the grey areas that ambiguity is impossible. If it's grey, there's nothing anybody can do about it, precisely because of the people you're talking about. Think of it as the distinction between solids and liquids. There are many liquids that act almost like solids, and many solids that act almost like liquids. But if you've a 20 tonne granite boulder, or a hundred carat diamond, you can be sure that whoever performs whatever test they care to perform and use whatever benchmark they chose to apply, that essentially everyone will reach the same answer. It's merely the scientific method used in the social sciences and political sciences. For once.

"Facts" are easy to manipulate, sure, as are opinions. That's basic psychology and that's why you can't rely on either from a single source of by means of a single mechanism. If you want to know the reality, you need to dig a lot deeper and that's only possible when there's anything substantial to dig through.

How would you apply this to bloggers, though? Most bloggers belong to the grey, undefinable region called personal opinion. As a result, they simply don't apply to any of this. You can't treat opinion or qualitative observation in the same way as an axiom or an empirical observation. As a result, those bloggers can't be classified in any way other than people expressing opinions or qualitative observations. That's as far as you can go.

In the far fringes, in the very extremes, you don't get that woolliness, that fluidity that is part and parcel of being human. The liquid opinions have been replaced by things which are very solid or totally gaseous. There ceases to be ambiguity, the human condition no longer applies because the human is merely the instrument by which the information is conveyed onto the Internet, the information exists in the state that it exists whether the human concerned is there or not.

This is the realm that can be legislated. Long, long past the point of ambiguity, well into the realm where any number of people would reach a near-universal consensus, you can say that that consensus defines absolutely whether something is acceptable or not. We're not talking one or two people agreeing on something, or even twelve or even a hundred thousand. If you could go out tomorrow and hold a national referendum (303 million people or so) on whatever the question is and get 99.9% to give you exactly the same answer, with no variance between class, race, gender, background or any other variable, you simply cannot get greater certainty on social issues than that. Greater certainty doesn't exist.

How do you tell if someone is genuine? You can't be sure for the vast majority of cases, but there will be maybe 0.01% of cases where no matter what the test you apply is, no matter who does the evaluating, no matter how opposing in belief the evaluator decides to be, the person is every time shown to be genuine and nothing but. You can't do much about the other cases, but you CAN say that any blog that indisputably fits in that 0.01% is worthy of every scrap of shielding you can give it. Again, I point out the importance of the "indisp

Re:legal speech

[falconwolf]

How do you tell if someone is astroturfing? Basically, by the same method. If every person, by every means at their disposal, comes to the absolutely unequivocal decision that something is astroturfing, so far beyond all even remotely reasonable doubt that you could put a complete list of every unreasonable doubt left, written in crayon, in an Altoids tin without being remotely concerned about the space, then it's astroturfing.

So if someone goes to Saudi Arabia and tells people there humans evolved he's astroturfing? He might be lucky and be allowed to walk away with his life. Maybe they'll think he's crazy, and you're not supposed to harm crazy people. Heck, as a percentage more people in Turkey believe in evolution than people in the US do.

Falcon