Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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).
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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.
"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".
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
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.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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
"press" as defined under federal law is extremely broadly defined.
e s/commonsense/
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/mileston
We are all just people.
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.
We are all just people.
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.