Internet Blogging and Grassroots Political Activity in Danger (FEC)

[incapsulated]

I'm sorry if this is a dupe, but it's news to me.

This is really alarming. From a CNET article, the FEC is planning to extend the 2002 campaign finance laws to regulate internet activity. Political Web Ads would be out. Even linking to a campaign website would be forbidden to bloggers or anyone else because they aren't considered "press". Internet fundraising, through a campaign website, or even your own email list could be in danger.

What is amazing is that it's the Democrats voting for this on the commission!

Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.

In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.

<snip>

If Congress doesn't change the law, what kind of activities will the FEC have to target?

We're talking about any decision by an individual to put a link (to a political candidate) on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet.

Again, blogging could also get us into issues about online journals and non-online journals. Why should CNET get an exemption but not an informal blog? Why should Salon or Slate get an exemption? Should Nytimes.com and Opinionjournal.com get an exemption but not online sites, just because the newspapers have a print edition as well?

http://news.com.com/The+coming+crackdown+on+blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html

John Marshal and Atrios asking about this:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

If this is the law, then the law is an ass.

I'd like hear some more voices about the issues involved in this potential regulation and whether what FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith predicts is likely to come about. But if it's as he says, it really would mean the end of what this site and so many others on the right and left do.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

The End of the Internets

I do think there are ways that some campaign finance law provisions can be reasonably extended to the internet, but what they're talking about now would essentially put an end to all political speech on the internet, with the exception of "established" media organizations.

-Atrios 9:59 AM

[FloridaPat]

1. Swift Boats ads are OK but internet comments aren't? Gee, I

wonder which party is unhappy. The trick would be to get "press credentials". Shouldn't be too hard. Gannon got them!

Seems it only goes against linking to candidates web sites or using their web information. That should leave a lot of doors open.

[incapsulated]

2. This could curtail the grassroots organizing on the internet

Any "organized" activity could fall under regulation. If you raise money or awarness of a candidate online by sending out links and other "campaign" information, that could be verboten because it would be considered a "donation". Which is totally nuts. I'm not charged a fee for handing out a leaflet. How do I get people to a candidate's website without a link? How do we raise money without a link to donate?

I don't know what will be enforced here, but I find this disconcerting to say the least.

[Ian David]

3. No links on our webpages? Can we still put bumper-stickers on our cars?

Same principle, really.

[NVMojo]

12. could we still wear campaign buttons? Could we even campaign?

Some little two incher is scared to death and wants to control their environment and our lives...

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. This is absurd. But that's what worries me

The Republicans are masters at selective enforcement. They can challenge anyone or anything any time they want, they have well funded front organizations that can do that type of harassment. It doesn't even matter if they ultimately win, for them slapping on a temporary restraining order is the same as a victory. But even if both sides got restrained equally, it goes against the heart of grass roots democracy. I can't believe it was Democratic commissioners who lined up in favor of the Judge.

[BootinUp]

5. correct

It can't be enforced fairly, that would be impossible with current Government resources.

[trillian]

6. According to this guy it's all a smokescreen.....

....to get us to attack our own.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Brad Smith. Liar.

Bush-appointed FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith is not a big fan of McCain-Feingold. He would love to have everyone believe that free speech equals the right of any anonymous donor to funnel millions into any campaign they want.

But the left loves McCain-Feingold. So how to get them to hate McCain-Feingold? Imply that you are going to start to try to shut down free speech and bloggers on the Internet because you are being forced to do so by those hateful Democrats on the Federal Election Commission. The best way to do that? How about an interview at CNET entitled "The Coming Crackdown On Blogging." And people ranging from Atrios at Eschaton, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, and Armando at Daily Kos seem to be falling all over themselves trying to make alliances with right-wing bloggers to try and stop the "new law."

People, this is a transparent power play. There is no new law. Its just a few off-hand comments one Commissioner made to a reporter at CNET. Just because Bradley Smith implies the Commission is going to go that way doesn't make it so. Even the smallest drop of knowledge about First Amendment law would tell you that such an interpretation has probably one of the steepest climbs in all of jurisprudence. Smith wants to make an end-run around the other members of the committee by undercutting their support. But they don't need support. They don't take orders from anyone. Why would Brad Smith think this? Because he does.

So before you go and submit a torrent of E-mails to the Democratic members of the FEC, stop and think. Am I really doing the right thing by reflexively doing the will of the Republican chair of the FEC?

RW
3/3/2005 2:36:08 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00) Disclaimer | Comments <7> | Trackback

http://ironmouth.com/PermaLink.aspx?guid=4ff483b4-df61-4463-9952-e1be620e0b88

[cestpaspossible]

7. You'd think people would start to recognize disinformation by now...

[incapsulated]

8. Please, I'm not a fool

I know this guy is a rethug. However, what we are dealing with here is a ruling by a judge that did not allow the "exemption" of the internet. Which would not threaten Campaign Finance in it's entirety at all. All I can imagine is that the Democrats are more afraid of what the Republicans can do via the internet than they are confident of what we can do with it.

[cestpaspossible]

11. I said no such thing.

I hate when people try to put words in my mouth.

[trillian]

9. Not easy!

Atrios, Josh Marshall and Armando at dailykos all posted it this morning.

[Tigress DEM]

15. Thing is they are great at the shell game too.

It will come up again and again and simply we need to defend our right to free speech.

If they want to try and surpress us, we pass it out by hand and each publish our sites with "instructions on how to look things up without naming exact URL's" in other words we go to code type language to accomplish the same things and do a lot more in person meetings.

We post it on telephone poles. We put up signs on freeway overpasses. We go to jail if they decide telling the truth is wrong, then we tell the prisoners and get them going.

It doesn't matter how hard they try to push us down, the truth is what is right and will be what comes out in the end.

We don't have to attack each other if all we talk about is that what we do is free speech and a lot more fact based than the media.

[hector459]

10. So, you want people to take to the streets, do ya!!! This will do it!

And I will join them.

[blondeatlast]

13. SCOTUS would surely smack it down; like profanity, how can it

be defined?

Even the RW would probably go after this one.

[dzika]

14. Video - Federal Election Commission may regulate Blogs, links, emails!

They mentioned this article on CNN this afternoon.



Video in Real Media format (3 minutes)

[Crunchy Frog]

16. Kick.

:kick:

[Vinca]

17. It was only a matter of time

before they started to come after the bloggers. They've controlled MSM and now they want to control the 'net. NO WAY, NO WAY, NO WAY!!!

[foreverdem]

18. I agree

Now that blogs have become so popular for getting news out the the people, the repukes can't have them telling the truth, now can they?

[Evergreen Emerald]

19. Bush and Co. have succeeded in controlling the media

The internet is the only thing between them and total control of information. We are not forced to rely on their propoganda as truth as long as we have free access to information. And they are trying their best to minimize the information gleaned from bloggers and not to control the information. They are so scary.

[MellowOne]

20. I so agree!

Good post.

[Kimber Scott]

21. I guess we'll have to do like the corporations and set up off-shore.

What's good for the goose...

[sandnsea]

22. They can't

Linking has already been ruled on and anybody can link to anybody. They can't dictate what links you put on a web site or who you forward your email to. That's private free speech. This is stupid.

The CA hearing about whether bloggers can protect sources, however, is very serious and not looking good for bloggers.