Slashdot Log In
FEC Extending Election Regulation to the Internet
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:45 AM
from the more-complications-for-the-blogosphere dept.
from the more-complications-for-the-blogosphere dept.
m_d_j_00 writes "Cnet has a story about Federal Election Commission plans to extend election laws to the Internet." From the article: "In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. 'The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines' the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote." This may include regulation of bloggers and mailing lists linking to or forwarding campaign website URLs.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm dutch, so I don't know what the FCC is or isn't allowed to do, but my gut tells me that this is not one the things they are allowed to do.
Can anybody elaborate?
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Informative)
Which means that if a candidate uses a Dutch server to spam people, they can still fine him or force him to drop out of the race. Remember, if an American goes to Thailand and has sex with a 10 year old hooker, they can still face charges upon return to the states. Same deal.
Parent
Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I have a problem with this. First off, SPAM is known to generate ill will. When you're doing it for commercial gain it's a viable (if evil) strategem. When you're trying to get people to like you it's something alltogether.
SPAM isn't a problem here. Personaly I'd like candidates not to call me at home, but that's a different issue.
The FEC's role is to make sure elections are fair. To that end they regulate campaign finance contributions etc. Applying these rules to the itnernet seems rather shortsighted. The internet allows a grass roots mobilization on a grand scale (which is what the FEC should b encouraging). There is almost no marginal cost associated with internet campaigning and as a consequence, the internet promises to eliminate much of the money driven corruption in politics.
This move strikes me as suspect. The FEC has an inherent bias against small groups and third parties. Internet campaigning as shown itself to be a powerfull tool in the hands of non-central ideologies and third parties. This seems to be yet another way to protect the two party system. This, along with the administration of presidential debates, is a symptom of the decline of democracy in the United States.
Parent
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)
The problem that they are really worried about is if I post a link to say Bush's campaign site in a post to Slashdot, how much have I contributed to his campaign. More importantly, is it from my contribution or from OSDN? If from OSDN then they are a corp and not allowed so how much should they get fined. Maybe Slashdot would get an ex
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
Then the problem is any mention of the candidates anywhere - no matter how you report something (on the internet, in the newspaper, shouting it out of your car), it can always have some influencing effect.
Hypothetically, you could report:
"President Bush took a dump this morning that made the bathroom smell like feces".
...or you could report...
"President Bush brushed his teeth this morning with toothpaste that made his breath smell like mint."
The two things are both equally factual (in this hypothetical situation), but one makes most people think nicely of the prez (minty breath) and the other makes most people think poorly. Even mentioning the person at all conveys his importance as a famous public figure.
The inverse of this, not mentioning someone at all, plagues third party candidates. For example back in October, a news story might have been "President Bush campaigned today in Cleveland, while John Kerry campaigned in Tampa." That is free publicity for both Kerry and Bush, but just because you're being unbiased regarding those two candidates, the fact that you exclude from your reporting any mention of third party candidates means you're helping the campaigns of Bush and Kerry to defeat their other competitors.
I don't envy the FEC for having to try to regulate this kind of campaign influence.
As for your example, it even depends on how you linked: Miserable Failure [whitehouse.gov] or Gleaming Success [whitehouse.gov]
Parent
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Not the same deal (Score:4, Insightful)
It might help, but it opens up new problems as well.
Parent
LIke Nixon and Muskie, you mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
So if I'm, say, Bush, I could have my "Swift Boat Veterans" group, or the equivalent, SPAM in a deliberately offensive way 'on behalf of' John Kerry.
That's basically what Nixon used CREEP to do with paper materials: he had fake campaign literature to hand out at Muskie rallies, distorting Muskie's actual positions. (It's also what Karl Rove did in college; he describes that now as a "youthful indiscretion.")
Near as I can tell, though, SPAM isn't the issue. The abuse we've seen like this has been equivalent to the Swift Boat Vets' efforts -- like the Bob Jones University e-mails implying that John McCain had fathered a mixed-race child out of wedlock during the 2000 primaries. That kind of poison you want to target to a receptive audience, not SPAM to the world. So, back to building address lists...
Parent
Re:LIke Nixon and Muskie, you mean? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a problem with either so long as it is disclosed. Atrios can go off and work for Media Matters provided he tells people that he is working for a 527 (he did). What I do not like is the submarine campaigns where candidates have been paying bloggers to write dirt about their opponent.
Regulation
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Informative)
Or have you forgotten the 1976 Lockheed bribery scandal [darwinmag.com]?
So, while it might be legal to give or receive a bribe in another country, US citizens cannot do either, even when abroad.Same thing for child sex, etc.
Parent
Re:I don't think so (Score:2)
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)
And why the hell do you think that? Considering the US president is arguable the most powerful, influential (and dangerous, well the current one IMHO) person on the planet I'm sure you would expect a lot of foreigners have legitimate business to be interested in the campaigns
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)
International law does not mean "everything UnrefinedLayman agrees with." There was nothing "illegal" about our invasion of Iraq. The UN Security Council gave explicit authorization in resolution 678 to use military force to enforce the cease-fire demands of resolution 687. This authorization was confirmed over a dozen times in the decade that followed, including resolut
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)
Although, something tells me that if someone outside the US starts campaigning for/against one politician it may cause an upset. I think it was one of the UKs newspapers that encouraged Uk Citizens to write letters to people in Ohio? And all the backlash that caused (including their w
Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a flawed law from the start. "The real question is: Would a link to a candidate's page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page and links to their favorite politician, is that a contribution? This is a big deal, if someone has already contributed the legal maximum, or if they're at the disclosure threshold and additional expenditures have to be disclosed under federal law."
That's so awfully close to restrited freedom of speech that it's dangerous - if comments on a blog can be considered "contributions".
Parent
We are already over that line (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the law that allows the FEC to do this. You will quickly note many other areas where freedom of speech is infringed. This law has already stood in in the supreme court.
In short, it is too late, you don't have freedom of speech.
Now I'll grant the freedoms lost are ones most people don't care about, but it is still a loss.
Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, that's refreshing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm damn sick of getting spammed by candidates. Oh yeah, and pre-recorded messages on my answering machine.
The part that sucks the most is when both of the leadng candidates spam, which means that I can't use it as a way to simplify my voting decision process.
Re:Oh, that's refreshing.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Too bad there aren't any third parties you could pick from instead...
Parent
way to go.. (Score:2, Insightful)
because it won't be hard to stop someone in belgium linking to the campaign site or anything now will it, noooo
So they're saying..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Law could be used as a weapon! (Score:3, Interesting)
Could a competing campaign (say pro-candidate A) purposely create content (i.e. blogs) that was pro-candidate B with the sole intent of effecting FEC fines that could hurt the target candidate/party's ability to run the current or future campaigns?
Political Speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Should you not be allowed to dontate to whom you choose?
What about Foreign web servers?
Who is going to filter this?
If it is not filtered, then which one of the thousands of people will be fined, and how would the FCC draw the line on this.
My friends, welcome to another slippery slope.
Incumbent Protection (Score:4, Interesting)
They're trying to prevent a candidate's opponents... especially non-major party candidates... from having any kind of impact on their reelection.
By it's very definition, the first amendment protects political speech. It is fool hardy to believe that it is appropriate to prevent someone blogging from posting a link to a contribution site.
Tell that to Senators McCain and Feingold, and their attempted Incumbent Protection Act, er, Campaign Finance Reform. (Inability to talk about the incumbent's record within 60 days of the election.)
Should you not be allowed to dontate to whom you choose?
One would hope so.
What about Foreign web servers?
Unenforcable without permission from the owners of the web sites, the various national governments, etc.
Who is going to filter this?
Symantec? (Library filtering software they mentioned here a while back.) Some other company? Who knows. I would think this would be generally unenforcable from a legal standpoint... not that the government won't try.
If it is not filtered, then which one of the thousands of people will be fined, and how would the FCC draw the line on this.
Ooooo.... money... draw a line? Why? It's up to the people to stop this one.
My friends, welcome to another slippery slope.
It just seems like yet another speed-up point on the much larger slope we've been on for a long time.
Parent
Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Can you say "Selective Enforcement"? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see how this can work effectively. Marketing Driods have been trying to assign dollar values to links and impressions for ages to no avail.. I see this becoming a muddy mess of conflicting and inconsistent enforcement. The Internet just isn't in a state where this can be monitored and enforced effectively.
Look at how links impact search engine rankings. For example, the Google Bomb of linking "Miserable Failure" to The Shurb's biography. Would these links be considered a campaign contribution to Kerry in the last election? If so, what would their value be? Of the links on Slashdot, who would be responsible, the web site itself or the people who made the posts?
What if a BLOG gets flooded with BLOG SPAM linking to a political site, using terms like "How to Save Social Seurity" for the links? IS the BLOG admin responsible under these laws? The hosting provider? The person who made the posts or the person whose BLOG it is? None of this is addressed. All the discussion in the article seemed focused on the notion that the person whose web site has the link was the person who created the link and is authorized to create the link.
Which campaigns does this effect? (Score:2)
Since this is the Federal Elections Commission, I assume that it would have no bearing on Governor, State (Senate and Assembly), Township, and County races, is that correct?
First Amendment? Still mean anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is so stupid. They are regulating speech -- and political speech at that! The supreme law of the land says they can't do that.
Re:First Amendment? Still mean anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the beginning of the opinion:
Parent
and this is surprising how? (Score:3, Insightful)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
This is dead. Supreme
Ok, why?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Unless the campaigners have a ton of bloggers on staff that aren't asking for one damn dime, this should still be something that is costing them money. Website administration can still be a costly business. While people that aren't directly involved with the campaign aren't costing the politician any money by linking to their sites, the politician
Yet another argument for public-financed campaigns (Score:2, Insightful)
Me? I'm a Radical Moderate.
Re:More like against (Score:5, Funny)
Come on, I think we can trust our own elected officials to know what is best for us. I'm sure they will decide fairly and honestly how to regulate candidates so we will only get the best to choose from. How much choice do we really need anyway? What choice do we have now?
"
Parent
Flipping the Script (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Flipping the Script (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you are starting from the same premise that the FEC and Congress started, that we should regulate campaigns, so you are going to end up at the same point they did. A campaign is not like a corporation, it is not a well defined legal or financial entity. You cannot say that these regulations apply to only one person and not another they have to apply to everyone equally. So, since these regulations apply to the content of speech, they apply to anyone who is supporting or opposing a candidate. So, you have to choose, either you regulate and restrict everyones' political speech or no one's. If you try to restrict the speech of only certain persons such as the candidates themselves and those they pay directly it will be innefective.
The problem isn't with the execution of campaign finance "reform", the problem is with the goal itself.
Parent
Re:Flipping the Script (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't a new precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
But, that's only supposed to affect rich lobbyists and media conglomerates! It can't possibly apply to us as well!
Re:This isn't a new precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations, folks - you got what you were begging for. Some of us tried to tell you this was a bad idea, but you didn't listen because we were Evil Conservatives who only ca
Re:This isn't a new precedent (Score:4, Informative)
I call bullshit. If someone spends just $250 in a calendar year on their website (inlcuding at least a portion of the cost of the computer, connection, hosting, software, etc) and write something that is for or against a candidate then they have to fill out this form: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm5.pdf
And they will have to fill it out every 3 months if they continue to spend any amount of money on their website.
$250 is not a lot of money to spend on a website in a year, especially to start. So, this certainly would apply to anyone who sets up a website where the content supports or opposes a candidate. This has already and will have a great chilling effect on political discussion in this country.
This is regulating the content of speech, clear and simple. Campaign finance reform is corrupt.
Parent
FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
FUD FUD FUD. I bet you a gazillion dollars that my first amendment right to speak for or against a candidate would not be infringed by FEC regulation of candidates' use of the internet as a communications medium. What it will do is prevent candidates themselves from using blogs in an unregulated fashion. It's like saying that FEC regulation of TV as a campaign communication medium prevents you from ranting on your cable public access channel, which it doesn't.
If I'm wrong, prove it, don't tag it to the end of an article submission.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, SCOTUS already killed the First Amendment with respect to political speech, when they upheld [fecwatch.org] the BCRA (aka McCain/Feingold, Campaign Finance Reform) [loc.gov] back in 2003. But don't take my word for it. Here is part of the opinion from Justice Kennedy:
webpages, independent expenditures, links (Score:3, Interesting)
In a recent enforcement decision, wisconsin right to life was reprimanded for posting a link.
W RtL is a corporation, and the FEC decided this was a prohibited corporate contribution. www.fec.gov [fec.gov].
I'm concerned about that.
In 2000, I and 1200 other people wrote the FEC to ask them to keep hands off the internet, and they were doin somewhat ok with that, until this decision last fall in the Shays v FEC case.
They received another 1200 comments and are in the process of adopting regulations.
Shays is on appeal.
Amicus briefs supporting an unregulated internet would be welcome.
In 1992, when I saw John Gilmore hand Glenn Tenny a several hundred dollar contribution to his internet-based run for congress, I thought the internet would someday have a big impact on campaigns. In 1994, with the de-foley-8 america PAC, it did, but it was this last election cycle where the net became maybe more important than TV. Dean's fundraising and moveon.org and blogs were real players, and the usual suspects are calling for regulation and censorship.
Votelaw.org, electionlawblog.org and electionline are some good places to follow these issues. In contrast, ballots.blogspot.com [slashdot.org], my election law blog, is not as good.
The fight against internet censorship has usually focused on smut and indecency. I've been trying, without success, to use political speech cases to make the same points.
Maybe now even the dimmest among us will see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether you're left or right, liberal or conservative, fascist or capitalist, if you can read you can understand the plain meaning of the first amendment.
What part of "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." don't they understand?
Re:What an interesting history (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blog crackdown? Like Iran? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it is. Don't ask them to explain how it's different, it just is. You're not supposed to think like this. That's free thought and that's dangerous.
It would be like asking the question: if Syria is on the list of nations who use torture to try and extract information from prisoners and we (the U.S.) object to such treatment, how come we (the U.S.) send suspected terrorists to Syria for interrogation?
Parent
Re:Blog crackdown? Like Iran? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but that doesn't matter when -- by moral and legal measures -- you're not supposed to torture people. If you are arguing that torture is necessary, then you are arguing for breaking BOTH the moral and legal bases for the United States government system. So don't be coy; just admit you want Fascism.
If you want to play the "war" angle to support the idea of legalized torture, please realize that the US Congress did not declare war, it just authorized the President to conduct military operations. This is why no one is being prosecuted for sedition or treason -- a legal state of war simply doesn't exist right now. Therefore torture is still illegal, at the very least.
Parent
Re:Blog crackdown? Like Iran? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a libertarian. I'm stating that up front, because I'm going to piss off Republicrats and Demopublicans alike and I want any claims of partisanship to at least correctly identify my party.
When did public political discourse devolve into outrageous exaggeration, name-calling, and vitriol? I know it's been like that among politicians for quite a while, but I can rememebr a time when that was the exception in public discourse, not the norm.
Look, people: just becaus
Re:Sure, why not (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I want to challenge this in court (Score:4, Insightful)
Thirty years ago, Lenny Bruce fought tooth and nail against indecency laws, though it cost him everything he had. He died bankrupt. But thanks to him, other entertainers enjoy a lot of freedom.
The RIAA is pushing people around in lawsuits that would substantially hurt those individuals financially if they were to fight. None of those cases are going to court because it's cheaper to settle.
To quote Parker and Stone, freedom isn't free. It is hard won, and costs people their reputations, their standing, their money, their careers, and even their lives in extreme circumstances. If you want to keep your freedom, you have to be willing to sacrifice for it.
Otherwise, you're just bitching until someone else pays the price for you.
Parent