Richard L. Hasen is the primary gatekeeper on the FEC’s rulemaking process regarding BCRA and internet communications. He has an analysis of the Constitutional aspects of this case. I can only offer my personal views.
The real issue in my mind is whether the Congress is really interested in true campaign finance reform. Campaign finance reform. Of course, this is how Congress generally sells something they want to keep hidden just a bit. Make it about money going to politicians, but don’t actually do anything about money going to politicians.
Restricting campaign spending doesn’t eliminate the money going to politicians. Instead, it limits money going to everyone else. Politicians can still collect money from just about anyone willing to give it to them. That’s the real problem.
The Proposed Rules regarding internet communications are now posted on line at the FEC’s site, and the comment period is open until 3 June 2005.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether bloggers, whether acting as individuals or through incorporated or unincorporated entities, are entitled to the statutory exemption. Can on-line blogs be treated as ‘‘periodical publications’’ within the meaning of the exemption? See 2 U.S.C. 431(9)(B)(i). If not, why not? Is the media exemption to be limited to traditional business models, meaning entities that finance operations with subscriptions or advertising revenue? The Commission also seeks comment on whether on-line forums qualify for the exemption.
Any restriction at all on blogs is an attack on free speech. Period. Exemptions for traditional media are an affront to free speech as well. Congress and the FEC have absolutely no authority to regulate what discourse gets published in a newspaper. Giving them an exemption is a backhanded way of implying that the government could restrict them if it chose to do so. The same is true for blogs, and television, and radio. Any mention of media in any way carries this same implication. Let me reiterate: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How much clearer can you get?
William Randolph Hearst made a fortune with bias. Bias in the media isn’t necessarily bad. There simply must be options. Blogs provide that. Fifty years from now historians will note how the current media lean and how they’ve handled policy issues. And what bias they brought to their reporting. Blogs are quite open about their leanings already, and provide a much more trustworthy perspective than do traditional media if only because you know the shopowner and what he stands for.
If Congress wants to eliminate the influence of Big Money™ in politics, they need to do something other than pass laws on how that money is spent. Instead, they need to limit how that money is collected. Once again, I propose that the only true campaign finance reform law which makes any sense at all is to limit donations to candidates and political parties to individual American citizens. No groups of any kind are allowed to donate.
What incumbent has the guts to propose such a thing?
Time for all who write and read blogs, and depend on them for some kind of sanity check during any election, to read the proposed rules and offer comments.
All comments must be in writing, must be addressed to Mr. Brad C. Deutsch, Assistant General Counsel, and must be submitted in either electronic, facsimile, or hard copy form. Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt and consideration. Electronic comments must be sent to either internet@fec.gov or submitted through the Federal eRegulations Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
If the electronic comments include an attachment, the attachment must be in the Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) or Microsoft Word (.doc) format. Faxed comments must be sent to (202) 219–3923, with hard copy followup. Hard copy comments and hard copy follow-up of faxed comments must be sent to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20463. All comments must include the full name and postal service address of the commenter or they will not be considered. The Commission will post comments on its Web site after the comment period ends.
And don’t forget to write to your own senators and congressman. BCRA needs to be repealed. The First Amendment must be enforced. And offering exemptions is a violation of those rights. I recommend writing to those in Congress and offering your own solution. And copy those folks on any communication you send to the FEC.
Swarm. It is the only thing they understand.
**** UPDATE ****
Ryan is being accosted by those who think BCRA is a good thing. Unfortunately, they can’t say why.