Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government Politics

FEC Extending Election Regulation to the Internet 337

Posted by Zonk 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This discussion has been archived.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.

FEC Extending Election Regulation to the Internet More

FEC Extending Election Regulation to the Internet

Comments Filter:

  • I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Killjoy_NL ( 719667 ) <slashdot@@@remco...palli...nl> on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:47AM (#11834379)
    I'd like to see them try to "regulate" foreign servers.

    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)

      by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:51AM (#11834436) Homepage
      This is the FEC, not the FCC.

      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.

      • Re:I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TGK ( 262438 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:02PM (#11834561) Homepage Journal
        Bad example, but your point is well taken. A better way to say it might be that the candidate still has to RUN for office in the US. So even if they spam from an offshore account, the FEC can still hold them accountable.

        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.

        • Re:I don't think so (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          demoplutocracy

          You get to choose which rich person and his friends will rule you. It's very little different from having an elected monarchy really.
        • 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.

          What if you're doing it to get people to hate your opponent? I'm thinking, for example, of the annoying "Dean for President" spam that showed up last year. Sounds like a possibly successful strategy unless someone connects it to your campaign rather than your opponent's camp

        • Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)

          by swv3752 ( 187722 )
          Actrually, the FEC wanted to be hands off, but the Judge said no, you have to regulate it as well. Of course this was not only in the TFA but in the article summary so...

          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)

            by Anonymous Custard ( 587661 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @02:54PM (#11836462) Homepage Journal
            > "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."

            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]

      • Not the same deal (Score:4, Insightful)

        by phorm ( 591458 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:04PM (#11834587) Journal
        It's a little easier to hide under the veil of anomymity using the internet. Having candidate (a) hire a spammer to spam for candidate (b) just before an election comes to mind. Or how about if a non-endorsed fan of (a) just decides to do so?

        It might help, but it opens up new problems as well.

        • LIke Nixon and Muskie, you mean? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:48PM (#11835110)
          Having candidate (a) hire a spammer to spam for candidate (b) just before an election comes to mind.

          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...

          • There have been a number of bogus bloggers where a candidate has paid a blogger to write articles for them. Then there have been outright partisan bloggers who have done consultancy work for campaigns.

            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

    • FCC? No, FEC, the Election commision, and they will only regulate as it regards the US Elections. Sticky territory, because there will be plenty of US trails to follow even if a foreign server is involved. And if there are no US citizens involved, you have no business with our campaigns.

      • Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dhbiker ( 863466 )
        And if there are no US citizens involved, you have no business with our campaigns.

        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
      • I hate replying to my post, but I wanted to clear up that I think this court ruling is absurd for all the reasons pointed out in the Article. It seriously threatens grass roots politics, so hopefully it will be overturned.

        I still stand by my opinion that if US citizens are regulated in our elections, that foreigners MUST be, although I don't know how this would be enforced
      • And if there are no US citizens involved, you have no business with our campaigns.

        True.

        A lot of Iraqis feel that way also.

    • Re:I don't think so (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 )
      You've hit one of the nails on the head. How can the FCC regulate servers out of their jurisdiction? They can't. About the only thing they can do (at best), is go after the groups in the US that are renting those servers.

      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)

      by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:56AM (#11834489)
      You're right - they can't (FEC, no FCC) regulate servers outside the US.

      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".

      • 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.

    • The FEC doesn't have to regulate the servers. They just have to regulate the candidate. If your Dutch server over there is being used by a campaign and violates the election laws, then the candidate over here can still be forced out of the race, even if the server can't be shut down.

      On a slightly related note, based on the political climate in the US from 2000 (I'd say around the incident with our airplane being forced down inside of Chinese airspace) to present, the political climate and the rhetoric comm
    • The candidate can still be found liable if parties representing him/her are using foreign servers.

      If a foreign group attempts to campaign for a US candidate online, they would face the same hurdles (or lack thereof) that they face now. They would not be able to contribute money (or consideration) to the candidate. If the candidate is found to be knowingly colluding with foreign groups for consideration, they may be in violation of US federal law.

      A foreigner that wanted a particular candidate elected wou

  • Oh, that's refreshing.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:48AM (#11834398) Homepage
    Oh, that's refreshing.

    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. :/

  • way to go.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dhbiker ( 863466 )
    This may include regulation of bloggers and mailing lists linking to or forwarding campaign website URL

    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)

    by ral315 ( 741081 )
    that every link I make is a contribution to a campaign? Where can you honestly draw the line? From what it looks like, this is a contribution. [johnkerry.com]
    • To me, the interesting aspect of the Regulation is that violations are enforced by adding the estimated level-of-effort/value to a particular candidate's campaign expenditures. If a candidate's expenditures are deemed to be too high, the campaign is fined.

      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)

    by cyriustek ( 851451 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:55AM (#11834482)
    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.

    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)

      by KiltedKnight ( 171132 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:10PM (#11834675) Homepage Journal
      A lot of these campaign reform and regulation laws are very subtly or rather blatantly designed to make it much easier for incumbents to get reelected.

      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.

      • 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.)

        Got a cite for that? Feingold was the only person to vote against the PATRIOT ACT.. so I doubt that he would be in support of such an obviously stupid and illegal measure.

  • Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by modular_forms_boy ( 155163 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:56AM (#11834487) Homepage
    A move against bloggers would likely be stopped by the Supreme Court as a violation of free speech rights. Blog = Speech

  • Can you say "Selective Enforcement"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by doublem ( 118724 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:58AM (#11834519) Homepage Journal
    I've read the article, and it sounds like the door is being opened to start treating links to a site as a financial contribution to a campaign. While this could be used to fight astroturf campaigns, the actual implications are staggering. This all boils down to how much a link can raise for a candidate, and assigning a dollar value to links. The secretary sending letters example is a good one, and outlines the kind of muddy waters this is marching into.

    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.
  • Dammit! I just started my own political blog yesterday too, but that brings up a question.

    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?

    • 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?

      Probably, but don't count on it. A zealous prosecutor could find cause, even if all you did was link to the DNC homepage 4 years ago in a single entry.

      Selective enforcement is my biggest concern here, almost as concerning as the rule itself.

    • In every election, regardless of the level, the Federal Elections Commission must "certify" it in the very end in order to comply with a clause in the Constitution that every [subordinate] government [in the Union] must be a republican (note lower case "r") govornment.

      If the FEC do not certify it, then that means the Federal Government refused to recognize those elected and thus that particular government (state, city, county, etc.) has lost its powers and federal funding. So, no, it does affect State and

  • First Amendment? Still mean anything? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @11:59AM (#11834531) Homepage

    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.


    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.

    • They're not regulating what the candidate says. They're just regulating how much money he can spend. Candidates are perfectly welcome to say whatever it is they have on their minds, be it on TV, the internet, or on the steps of city hall. This ruling also won't have any effect. Talk on the internet is cheap. Give up a 30 second commercial spot on TV and you can pay for a pretty impressive amount of words on a webpage and even more emails.
      • One thing you're missing is that they've yet to release dollar amounts for links, etc. It could very well be that they arbitrarily determine a link to be 'worth' $100. They could make a sentence 'worth' $1000. Also, even if a link is valued at $.50, if you've contributed the limit in actual cash then one link is enough to land you in Federal hot water. I'm throwing numbers around, of course, but since the point of this legislation is to limit speech, and since that's already in direct confrontation with the

    • Re:First Amendment? Still mean anything? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eslyjah ( 245320 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:16PM (#11834732)
      Yes. Now would be a good time to (re-)read Scalia's dissent [cornell.edu] in McConnell v. FEC.

      From the beginning of the opinion:

      This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), tobacco advertising, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001), dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), and sexually explicit cable programming, United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000), would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national-party use of "soft" money to fund "issue ads" that incumbents find so offensive.
    • 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. Come on . . . that's inflammatory and you know it . . .

      Congress is able to regulate slander, libel, and defamation. Congress is able to censor public broadcasts. Congress allows local governments to pass laws regulating obsenity. Congress requires public television boradcasters to run public service announcements and a required amount of children's educational programming.

      • Congress is able to regulate slander, libel, and defamation.

        Congress can do only what the Constitution allows it to do. With regard to regulating speech, Amednment I states: Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press [...]. Show me where that authorizes regulation of any of the things you mentioned, in addition to what the FEC is doing.

        Congress allows local governments to pass laws regulating obsenity.

        The Constitution allows this (see Amendment X.)

        The founding

    • You need to stop assuming that everything published on the internet is part of the press. The article specifically states that there is an exemption for the press that is not being extended to things like blogs, mainly because a good number of people don't believe that blogs and the press are the same thing. These people don't believe that they're taking away your freedom of the press because they don't believe it was ever extended to you in the first place. In their eyes, the same rules apply, only now
    • I think you're a little bit late. The FCC has been regulating speech since 1934.
    • What does this have to do with feedom of speech? You can still say whatever you want, the candidates just have to account for your endorsement in their financing limits.
    • the Sixth -
      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)

    by theVP ( 835556 )
    The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines' the campaign finance law's purposes

    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, I think.
    Me? I'm a Radical Moderate.
    • Who decides who gets funded in publicly financed campaigns? The people already in office. Unless you want everyone who decides to run to get several million dollars in advertising. At which point the elections would make the California Gubernatorial process look serious.

      • Re:More like against (Score:5, Funny)

        by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @01:40PM (#11835658)
        "Who decides who gets funded in publicly financed campaigns? The people already in office. Unless you want everyone who decides to run to get several million dollars in advertising. At which point the elections would make the California Gubernatorial process look serious."

        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?

        " ...because it's always gonna be between a giant douche and a turd sandwich ..."

  • Flipping the Script (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:04PM (#11834588) Homepage Journal
    The FEC is addressing the conflict between sponsored publications and unlimited campaign contributions. When combined, they don't give the truth a chance, and money controls elections unopposed. So the FEC, complicit in the corrupt travesty American elections have become, regulates the press - websites - rather than regulate the campaigns. Obviously the FEC must ensure that money can't overwhelm debate with press saturation, especially on the less- accountable Internet. But their regulations should control their actual jurisdiction: political campaigns, their management and finance.

    • Re:Flipping the Script (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @02:10PM (#11835992)
      "Obviously the FEC must ensure that money can't overwhelm debate with press saturation, especially on the less- accountable Internet. But their regulations should control their actual jurisdiction: political campaigns, their management and finance."

      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.

  • This isn't a new precedent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by boohiss ( 804985 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:06PM (#11834619) Homepage
    Everyone's favorite congressman, John McCain, and his buddy Feingold already got that awful Campaign Finance "Reform" law passed, which effectively abridges free speech.

    But, that's only supposed to affect rich lobbyists and media conglomerates! It can't possibly apply to us as well!

    • This isn't a new precedent (Score:1)
      by boohiss (804985) on Thursday March 03, @11:06AM (#11834619 [slashdot.org])

      Everyone's favorite congressman, John McCain, and his buddy Feingold already got that awful Campaign Finance "Reform" law passed, which effectively abridges free speech.

      But, that's only supposed to affect rich lobbyists and media conglomerates! It can't possibly apply to us as well!

      John McCain is a hypocrite, whose constituency is the media (which can editorialize all it wants without being affected by ca

    • You nailed it perfectly. In politics.slashdot.org, there's a near-constant cry for "campaign finance reform" to save us from evil businesses and their attempts to sway public opinion. Now that such a rule is being applied equally, I suspect we'll hear the exact same people crying that they shouldn't be subject to the same laws.

      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

  • This sort of thing undelines the basic problem with McCain-Feingold: it undermines free speech and until it is overturned (preferrably by Congress) it will continue to do so.

  • FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ecklesweb ( 713901 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @12:08PM (#11834640)
    may include regulation of bloggers

    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.
    • I wish I could agree with you, but on the basis of your arugments I don't. Cable has long been centrally managed and elitist, hence the "public access channel" thing just doesn't gather that many eyeballs. Websites in contrast CAN. Not to use FUD, but if the FEC can regulate candidate political expression according to rules of spending, exposure, etc. ... then perhaps this kind of thing can be used against a website run by anyone linked to a candidate. Then we have to ask what "linked to a candidate" re

    • Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bsdbigot ( 186157 )

      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:

      Although today's opinion does not expressly strip the press of First Amendment protection, there is no principal of law or logic that would prevent the application of the Court's reasoning in that setting. The press now operates at the whim of Congress.

      • I'm not familiar with that decision, so I ask this in all sincerity: To what extent does that decision impact the press *versus* individuals? Specifically I'm wondering whether the impact is different on bloggers depending on if you view them as jounalists/members of the press or if you view them as individuals expressing an opinion (my view is slanted towards the latter).
        • It seems clear to me after I read the article that the FEC will look at bloggers as press. In the eyes of the Constitution, there is no delineation between press and individual. Extending that logic via the FEC to the Internet, a blogger is every bit as much a press entity as the NYT, Tom Brokaw, or Reuters. Considering especially that there are still thousands of freelance reports that sell their content to these large organizations, and individual IS the press. Also, take into account that the Intern
  • Campaign finance laws violate free speech and always have, maybe now the bloggers and other Internet dwellers will realizes this. The only way out is if we are all declared (by a judge the ultimate power in the universe) media when we publish a web site.
  • If I'm a consultant that normally charges $100/hour and I volunteer to work on a political website, does this mean that I'm only allowed to volunteer 10 hours ($1K/contribution limit)?
  • And the internet means change. Not only does the internet provide leverage to 3rd-parties that have no current power, it provides progressives and conservative groups to ability to effect the major parties in new ways.

    That is the design of the awful McCain-Feingold "reforms." They are designed so the current gatekeepers remain in full control and this new scary thing called the internet has no chance to move the political process in new directions.
  • This is an issue that is too important to leave to congress. I want to get in trouble for blogging linking to websites. This law will be challenged in court.

    What is the dollar value of talking to your friends about the election? What about standing on the street corner plugging your candidate? Those signs that people love to have in their lawn, how much is that advertising space worth?

    If you wanted to be a complete prick you could assign a value to wearing a button and wearing a t-shirt with candidates

    • Re:I want to challenge this in court (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Caiwyn ( 120510 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @01:13PM (#11835362)
      Yeah, but you're losing your rights because you're not willing to fight for them.

      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.
  • This is not directed at spam. It is directed at webpages. Not so much those of candidates, but of independent organizations like moveon.org.
    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.

  • This is Old News (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There may even be a Slashdot story about this somewhere.

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6239493/ [msn.com]

    FEC may regulate Web political activity
    Agency considering whether to appeal court ruling

    The Associated Press
    Updated: 2:08 a.m. ET Oct. 18, 2004

    WASHINGTON - With political fund raising, campaign advertising and organizing taking place in full swing over the Internet, it may just be a matter of time before the Federal Election Commission joins the action. Well, that time may be now.

    A recent federal court ruling sa

  • Are political donations tax exempt in the US?

    All it will take to minimize the value of these things is for people to "donate" a few billion dollars worth of tax deductions.

  • Ugh... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Phoenix Rising ( 28955 )
    This is a huge morass, and might be the single straw that breaks the back of McCain-Finegold.

    There are tons of collaborative political sites out there on both sides, who aren't associated with the parties or candidates yet strongly support their causes. They deserve the freedom they had through the 2004 elections.

    And then there's the blogs like the pro-Thune blog in S.D., where the bloggers were paid for their blogging efforts by the campaign itself. They don't deserve crap under McC-F.

    But the law does

  • Maybe now even the dimmest among us will see... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by windowpain ( 211052 ) on Thursday March 03, 2005 @02:12PM (#11836025) Journal
    The McCain-Feingold Act was an outrageous usurpation of our first amendment rights.

    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?

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close