FEC Hears: "Hands Off the Net!"

The New York Times (free reg. req.) is reporting that the Federal Election Commission has heard a clear message from the internet community regarding regulation of political websites. That message: Don't! It seems likely that no new regulations will be passed at least before this year's election. Some thoughtful material urging the hands-off approach is at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

G.W. Bush Parody Site

[FalconRed]

The NY Times article doesn't bring it up, but today's Wired News does [wired.com]. The issue around the gwbush.com [gwbush.com] site is whether or not an individual should be constricted by the same rules as corporations, or whether they are protected under freedom of the press, or whether there is some new legal standing for individuals on the internet. Bush may help us find an answer soon if he chooses to press ahead with his lawsuit.

Personally I think common sense should come in to play here: an individual is usually nither the press nor a corporation, and should not have the same protections/restrictions. And the internet shouldn't be allowed to become some political advertising free-for-all, lest we all be spammed with banner ads proclaiming "Vote Gore!" or pop-up windows advising us, "Get tough on Internet Porn with CyberCop and George W. Bush!". Oh, the humanity!

Far from over yet

[jaed]

You notice, though, that they don't say they're *not* going to regulate political speech on the net - only that the regulatory process will be slow and they probably won't do anything until after the election.

Notice also that "campaign finance reform" is a hot issue in this upcoming Presidential election, and the form it usually takes is either forbidding campaign contributions or severely limiting them. If political advocacy is taken as a "contribution" when it takes place on the net - and the FEC doesn't seem to have ruled out this possibility, just said it won't decide that now - then presumably it would be illegal to advocate for or post in support of a candidate or issue, or be legal only if your expenditures were calculated at below the limit.

There are some obvious first amendment problems with limiting campaign contributions by private parties, and this really brings them into sharp focus. "Post 'Vote for So-and-So', go to jail". A close eye still needs to be kept on this, and hopefully brought up during discussion of the broader issue of campaign finance reform.

Be careful what you wish for.

[JohnL]

I could easily see all political speech on the internet being regulated by the FEC. Want to post some dumb quote by your favorite legislator? Get a permit. Want to run a website that's similar to a candidate's(whitehouse.com, anyone?)? Let the FEC study the matter for a few months, and then they'll tell you.

And the internet shouldn't be allowed to become some political advertising free-for-all, lest we all be spammed with banner ads proclaiming "Vote Gore!" or pop-up windows advising us, "Get tough on Internet Porn with CyberCop and George W. Bush!".

Yeah! And there's pornography and bad language and computer hackers and crazy people and textbooks on bomb-making, too. Let's ban it all, For The Children.

Do you think regulation is really necessary? Or do you think that the 'net has gotten to where it is by virtue of government intervention?

--------------------

And just how much is your speech worth, anyway?

[sansbury]

Consider that the Feingold-McCain bill (thankfully stillborn for the time being, IMHO), would probably regulate web-based speech in the same way it would TV ads et. al.

The logic is thus: buying an ad on TV that promotes a certain candidate, even if funded and operated *entirely* by a 3rd party, is a form of "soft money."

Now imagine a website, started by an individual (or organization) that costs $15/month to support, becomes wildly popular and brings lots of support for said candidate. Do you value this as a contribution for $15, or do you try to assess the $ value of the publicity. If the latter, it could very easily exceed the $5000 (I think that's the number) limit on such "soft money" donations, and also be required to censor its content in the days leading up to the actual vote. After all, McCain-Feingold says it's not nice to promote a specific candidate with "soft money" 60 days before the election. That could be unfair...

This is why campaign finance laws can never work if we place any value on the 1st Amendment. So long as money can buy speech and citizens are held to have the right to promote a particular candidate, no form of soft money restriction can be held Constitutional without some serious Doublespeak.

The 'Net just screws the arithmetic up further because it can buy a lot of press for very little money, as our Turkish friend Mahir proved so well.

-cwk.