For who have been spending quality time under a rock for the last few weeks (or getting all their news from ObWi, since we haven’t much covered it), the FEC has suggested that it may begin regulating campaign speech on the internet. That is, blogs. That is, you and me.
This is a gross and, frankly, un-American attempt to regulate political speech. The proposed rules may very well prohibit blogs from supporting particular candidates, and could very easily stymie grassroots advocacy on the internet. I would ask that each of our U.S. readers strongly consider signing the Online Coalition petition, which opposes FEC regulation of the internet.
The FEC must be fought on this one, tooth and nail. Mike Krempasky of RedState.org is a signer of the open petition. Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos.com is also a signer. And so are many others. (I’m a signer, too.) Please join us.
(This is a message from von, and does not necessarily reflect the views of ObWi’s other commentators.)
Done
I’m happy to sign the petition. It would be nice to see a post on exactly where this pressure on the FEC is being exterted from. Exactly who is behind this ‘gross and, frankly, un-American attempt to regulate political speech’?
endorsed in triplicate
Wouldn’t this just be plain unConstitutional, for you American bloggers?
Not signing it, but only because I’m a Brit, and I can’t see why the FEC would pay any attention to me.
I signed it.
I don’t see how this proposed regulation passes the smell test vis the first ammendment, but these days it seems like the Constitution is considerd just a set of loose guidelines.
Done. Thank you.
It seems clear the ‘established media’ are behind this one, print and TV alike. Their audience is leaving them (for the internet generally, and blogs particularly); that means their advertising has a smaller and smaller audience. Also, they’re already under the gun from the FEC to transform their programming into 1950’s-style inoffensiveness which will pretty much limit their market to rural/conservative, which isn’t a prime target demographic for ad revenue purposes.
They feel the dinosaur die-off breathing down their necks and they’re in a panic.
It reflects the views of me. Thanks, von.
I signed it.
Not sure if I spelled “Winkelman” correctly though…
Have any of the enlightened folks discussed their willingness to join the lynch mob to string-up members of neo-nazi organization?
The whole Chicago judge thang?
The willingness to kill is a lot easier than you think.
Don’t stop at signing the on-line petition. They are unfortunately getting easier and easier to ignore as they are used for less and less noble reasons. Like saving Enterprise.
Email your senators and representatives letting them know how you feel about the FEC’s proposals. Or better yet, draft a simple letter, print it a couple of times, and mail it to their office. Or better yet, call them. Use the contact info on the petition and write or call the FEC. Sometimes when faced with regulation or legistlation as blatently wrong and silly as this, people ignore it thinking that it has no chance of being inacted. Then of course, it usually is.
Have any of the enlightened folks discussed their willingness to join the lynch mob to string-up members of neo-nazi organization?
i’ve kinda lost the urge, now that it turns out the murder likely wasn’t comitted by a neo-Nazi.
i’ve kinda lost the urge, now that it turns out the murder likely wasn’t comitted by a neo-Nazi.
That was my point.
Sorry, didn’t mean to hi-jack, but it has been bothering me. Especially, since we seem to be using lynch-mob passions to justify invasions and occupations and demonizations (Hussein’s involvement in 9-11, Syria’s involvement of Hariri’s death and so on).
I’m still pretty willing to join a lynch mob and string up any neo-nazis who might be handy.
If someone is planning a lynch mob in my area, please drop me an e-mail. Thanks!
That was my point
i kinda figured.
still, the evidence that it was a neo-nazi was certainly enough to warrant looking into the matter. i’ll bet the FBI did more than just sit around and idly speculate about neo-nazi involvement.
and, as long as we’re talking about nazis, allow me to toot my own horn: toot toot.
“…the FEC has suggested that it may begin regulating campaign speech on the internet. That is, blogs.”
Von, I suggest that if you look a bit more closely at what’s been going on, you might note that there has been no official statement from “the FEC” about this at all. This is not about “the FEC.”
This is about the Republican members of the FEC, specifically, only, trying to use scare tactics to raise hostility against McCain-Feingold in general (and the Evil Democratic Threat Behind It).
Now, the degree to which one should applaud or decry various aspects of McCain-Feingold, or all of it, is entirely debatable. But please examine specifically where these scary statements are and are not coming from, and from whose mouths, precisely, before attributing things to “the FEC” in general, and thus falling for the spin as intended. (I notice that you don’t provide any link in which this can be done, which I don’t attribute to your intentions, which I’m sure are good, but to you not having picked up on how you’re being spun.)
Gary has it precisely right. Mark Schmitt has a couple of good posts up about the issue.
I only agree with you halfway Gary. The Republican in question is pointing out clear implications of current decisions. The fact that the FEC has yet to ratify the implications of those decisions as applied to the internet does not make the criticisms ill-founded. In fact, publicizing the implications makes it far less likely that they will ever be implemented in that way. That is a good thing, so far as I am concerned. It is much easier to head of bad rule-making before it passes than it is to correct it afterwards.
And the fact that it makes the atrocious McCain-Feingold law look bad is a nice bonus as far as I’m concerned.
Gary, point noted. Sebastian’s comment (which I adopt) provides my substantive response. “The FEC has suggested” is accurate, in that FEC commissioners have reported their thoughts on the direction that they think the agency may take. Moreover, they are not speaking as private individuals; they are speaking as FEC representatives.
As for McCain-Feingold, and so we’re clear: I absolutely hate the bill, which is an affront to political speech. If it is possible to tear it into little pieces and jump up and down on the bill, I would. (Indeed, imagining the scence is provoking a small smile …)
Incidentally, since I “de-anonymized” by signing the petition, I’m compelled to mention that the foregoing represents my personal view and not the view of my firm.
“In fact, publicizing the implications makes it far less likely that they will ever be implemented in that way.”
Which is why I blogged about it the better part of a week ago (say, just how many issues brought up at ObWings can be found days earlier at that blog? Why, quite a few).
But the idea that the notion of the FEC limiting in any way anything related to common blogging and writing on the internet would be put forth without vast public debate and disagreement naturally erupting is risible. It’s beyond that: holding such a belief would require a degree of lack of contact with reality to the point of insanity.
Which is why David M. Mason and his friends are deliberately doing this: they know the inevitable resulting furor.
And, sure enough, bloggers are playing their appointed roles as puppets. Dance, dance, dance! Alarum!
That thing is as likely to fly — and therefore as likely to be a real threat — as it is that the Washington Monument will bend over and scratch my ass when I walk by it.
“But the idea that the notion of the FEC limiting in any way anything related to common blogging and writing on the internet would be put forth without vast public debate and disagreement naturally erupting is risible. It’s beyond that: holding such a belief would require a degree of lack of contact with reality to the point of insanity.”
I’m sorry but if you think that public rulemaking–even on hugely important issues–is often conducted with vast public debate, you would be very wrong. One of the most annoying facts about public rulemaking law (in almost every area outside of environmental law and often even there) is that hugely interested parties often don’t find out about the rule being changed until it the rule has already made it through the rule-making comment procedure. You don’t find out that Footnote 37 to Opinion A-47-X on Rule 149.3 is going to ruin your life until long after the Rule has been officialy enacted. And altogether too often you will find a puzzled look from a Commissioner who will swear that when he pushed the Rule through he didn’t think it applied in your case.
I think you are too hung up on “disagreement naturally erupting”. You are witnessing the way debate on rules naturally erupts. The FEC hints at something. One of the commissioners doesn’t like it. He publicizes it. People disagree with it. Hopefully they realize that the idea is hugely stupid. That is how it works.
“I’m sorry but if you think that public rulemaking–even on hugely important issues–is often conducted with vast public debate, you would be very wrong.”
I don’t think that, of course. But that’s not what’s going on here. This isn’t about rule-making; it’s a political con-job.
“I think you are too hung up on ‘disagreement naturally erupting.’ You are witnessing the way debate
on rules naturally erupts.”
Nah. I’m witnessing a coldly planned clever partisan assault on McCain-Feingold (of which, as I said, the ultimately legitimacy or not may be entirely fairly debated) with a purely intentional, manufactured, entirely partisan, fuse. It’s precisely as natural as any artifical (deliberately constructed by humans) thing is.
It’s purely Republicans saying “look at what the Democrats are going to do!” while, you know, lying. (And many folks of good will of both parties innocently buying it, of course.)
But, hey, if you can find a quote of any of the Democratic FEC Commissioners agreeing that the alleged threat should be policy, I’m sure you won’t be shy about posting a link. Since this is an actual, non-partisan, threat by the FEC, you can do that, right?
No? Why would that be, if so?
(My own opinions about McCain-Feingold are rather mixed, but lean towards approving of requiring reporting, and some limitation on, financial transactions, while being considerably skeptical of any speech restrictions. My opinions, however, on this remain fairly unfirm.)
Incidentally, since I “de-anonymized” by signing the petition, I’m compelled to mention that the foregoing represents my personal view and not the view of my firm.
Wow, I guess this week has really been your coming out tour. Let us know when your MSNBC interview is scheduled. đ
Incidentally, since I “de-anonymized” by signing the petition, I’m compelled to mention that the foregoing represents my personal view and not the view of my firm.
Did your evil twin Van sign it?
Did your evil twin Van sign it?
I saw someone named Balvenie on the list.
“But, hey, if you can find a quote of any of the Democratic FEC Commissioners agreeing that the alleged threat should be policy, I’m sure you won’t be shy about posting a link. Since this is an actual, non-partisan, threat by the FEC, you can do that, right?”
That isn’t how things like this happen in the rule-making procedure. There doesn’t have to be a threat, there has to be action or inaction which allows the threat to become manifest. There has been such inaction.
In 2002 the FEC ruled that the internet was exempt from the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. U.S. District Judge Kollar-Kotelly has overturned that decision. On page 153 of the decision for Shays-Meehan v. FEC, Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote:
This is problematic because it will define as ‘advertising’ things that can involve choices to air without charge for various reasons including ideological reasons. The decision wants to include the internet under ‘broadcasting’ as discussed above. (see page 48-61 of the decision). I won’t quote it because it is so darn long, but at the end the judge overturns the FEC’s previous exemption of the internet.
The FEC has decided not to appeal that decision. There is no need for a specific statement endorsing regulation of internet communications, because the FEC as an institution has decided not to appeal. Why make a statement, your statement is the vote.
Now there will be rulemaking squabbling with respect to the scope of internet regulation, which the judge has mandated.
If anything, this is a relatively straight-foward case. A judge has specifically ruled something which contradicts the old FEC interpretation, the FEC as an institution has decided not to appeal it, therefore the ruling will change the rules. The exact way it will change the rules is not yet clear, but now is the time to pressure the FEC to make it obvious that regulation under expansive definitions of ‘advertisement’ will not be tolerated.
I honestly don’t see how this could be enforced. Who do you send the bill to? ISPs? The owner of the server? Try and track down the person responsible for content?
Who’s going to do all this?
This has to be a red herring.
One of the most annoying facts about public rulemaking law (in almost every area outside of environmental law and often even there) is that hugely interested parties often don’t find out about the rule being changed until it the rule has already made it through the rule-making comment procedure.
Certainly not the case in tax law.
I honestly don’t see how this could be enforced. Who do you send the bill to? ISPs? The owner of the server? Try and track down the person responsible for content?
Much like the MPAA/RIAA, they’ll start with the ISP, who will then disable the account. Not that hard.
Let me put it this way, Sebastian: I’ll bet you a dime that in the end, the FEC will take no action that will have the slightest practical effect on our blogging.
If, on the other hand, you or I have to make a single change in any way to how we blog, because of any FEC ruling on this matter, I will pay you a dime, and agree that you were right, and I was wrong. Shall we set a deadline of, I don’t know, how about December 31st, 2007? Bet?
I do note, without arguing the point further, that you completely declined to comment on my assertion that this is purely a Republican partisan maneuver intended to chip away at general support for McCain-Feingold; should I take that as silent assent to my assessment?
Does so. This one, at least.
Interesting points about what this is, what it means, how it works. I’d like to make a suggestion that I’m not sure how to find the evidence to support or refute, so any leads would be gratefully accepted.
During the election campaign, there were accusations of an asymmetrical response to 527s versus 501(c)s Could this move be linked to that? My impression is that the amount of money that blogs brought into the race was strongly tilted towards the dems. Googling doesn’t work very well because there are so many hits.
“I do note, without arguing the point further, that you completely declined to comment on my assertion that this is purely a Republican partisan maneuver intended to chip away at general support for McCain-Feingold; should I take that as silent assent to my assessment?”
Ah, you see this is precisely the same problem you had when you want to see a direct quote from a Democratic member of the FEC. Their actions reveal their intentions. I don’t need to say “Gary I formally disagree with you.” My disagreement is revealed in the fact that I bothered to read pages of awful FEC court rulings on the appropriateness of exempting or not exempting the internet in order to show that the worried about interpretation is not only not a ploy, but actually discussed approvingly by the judge whose ruling is important.
And what is ‘this’. If ‘this’ is revealing that the McCain-Feingold act is being interpreted so broadly as to even hint at endangering of some of the most basic kind of political speech, why do you interpret that as a partisan Republican game? It has in fact been ruled that the FEC ought to regulate the internet. ‘Advertisement’ has in fact been interpreted in a way that is much broader than we would normally use the word. ‘Advertisement’ has in fact been interpreted in a way which includes satisfying non-monetary ideological concerns. The FEC as an institution has in fact declined to appeal that ruling. If that is a Republican game, it is so only because Democrats on that committee are actually conducting themselves in ways that if unchecked politically lead to the inappropriate regulation of the internet.
“Let me put it this way, Sebastian: I’ll bet you a dime that in the end, the FEC will take no action that will have the slightest practical effect on our blogging.
If, on the other hand, you or I have to make a single change in any way to how we blog, because of any FEC ruling on this matter, I will pay you a dime, and agree that you were right, and I was wrong. Shall we set a deadline of, I don’t know, how about December 31st, 2007? Bet?”
Sure, feel free. I’m willing to lose a dime in the hope that political pressure forces the FEC to back off. I note you say ‘you or I’ but do not include for instance Instapundit or Kos. On the other hand I should accept even that, since I can certainly hope/wish that ObsidianWings becomes that popular.
As for the merits of McCain-Feingold in general, the fact that we are having this discussion at all suggests how sick a law it is–not regulating political speech is the very core of the First Amendment speech protection.
Liberal Japonicus, I don’t understand what you are getting at with “During the election campaign, there were accusations of an asymmetrical response to 527s versus 501(c)s Could this move be linked to that? My impression is that the amount of money that blogs brought into the race was strongly tilted towards the dems.”
If it is true that internet contributions helped Democrats more, why would that explain that the FEC Democrats are unwilling to appeal a ruling which wants to force the FEC to regulate the internet, while the Republicans on the FEC want to appeal the ruling so the FEC will not regulate the internet?
But if you want to look into it, you might try looking around at opensecrets.org. I’m not sure if they have exactly what you want, but they are an excellent resource for campaign finance questions.
Seb
I’m just trying to figure out how we estimate the amount of money that came in through blogs and what was the proportion that went to Dems and what proportion went to Republicans. I don’t want to enter into the realm of divining intent of the individual members of the FEC (do we know them, do we know exactly how they voted? Even if we did, I wouldn’t want to do that unless I could find a lot more information about them)
As this seems to enter into the realm of campaign financing, I really don’t know how to get at the numbers (I suspect that no one does, but some discussion would be nice, I thought) This article has some information, and this database, but the list give 18 out of 29 as being Republican, but I was trying not to draw any conclusions by presenting something like that.
I don’t think that opensecrets.org can get at this because, IIUC, as they note, 501c groups are not subject to any FEC oversight, and that
link
I’m still trying to understand if this is an effort by ‘old money’ to prevent new money from entering in, or if this is partisan in nature. Sorry to have not been clear.
Some more links for those interested
FEC homepage is here with tons of information. Members are also listed, but I couldn’t find the most recent stuff or who voted for what. I also am a bit confused about listing affiliation as ‘Democrat’ or ‘Republican’ as only one commisioner (MacDonald) seems to overtly lists their affiliation in their bio section, though in the interview by Brad Smith, which seems to have been ground zero, he talks about Democratic and Republican commissioners.
Here is the March archive for the election-law_gl mailist. Seems to be a very serious list with a whole host of issues (I would not be surprised if it had some interesting discussion about the Washington State election), and one of the posters, Trevor Potter, gave a link to a co-authored chapter of his on Election Law and the internet and the whole book is here
I am interested in this because here in Japan, while candidates can have a web site, they can’t update it in the 3 week run-up to the election.