Democrats Defeat Online FOS Act 782
not so anonymous writes "The Online Freedom of Speech Act was defeated in the House of Representatives yesterday. The Act would have immunized political bloggers from having to comply with hundreds of pages of FEC rules." From the article: "In an acrimonious debate that broke largely along party lines, more than three-quarters of congressional Democrats voted to oppose the reform bill, which had enjoyed wide support from online activists and Web commentators worried about having to comply with a tangled skein of rules. The vote tally in the House of Representatives, 225 to 182, was not enough to send the Online Freedom of Speech Act to the Senate. Under the rules that House leaders adopted to accelerate the process, a two-thirds supermajority was required."
Lovely Omission (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so I'm dusted. I see that the most liberal of parties opposes what is effectively Free Speech and the party which brought us the Patriot Act is advocating the it.
This means there's some reason other than what this post appears to say 'Hey, Democrats hate free speech!', like something has been attached which allows oil drilling in Yosemite National Park. From TFA:
Ah, there's the Why, a loophole for Campaign Finance law.The heading Democrats Defeat Online FOS Act and omission of the Why certainly colours this article. Why the omission? It appears the article poster favours websites/blogs which are covert mouthpieces of a particular interest group spouting dubious facts and leaving out highly relevant facts. Slashdot has effectively been trolled. Was this intentional, Zonk?
When black apears white or pigs appear to have sprouted wings, there's usually politics behind it, that's where Critical Thinking separates the herd. The Fine Print: We're probably not responsible for content, but in any event we are, we'll deny it.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, no doubt about it. You could have your site with .tv tld and most people wouldn't even assotiate it with Tuvalu and you could put whatever you like on it and host it in China or Cuba or Venezuela.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Interesting)
Just another state which is unlikely to bend to the will of America.
There was some good analysis of Venezuela and South American politics in general on the BBC World Service this morning.
Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:2)
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:5, Informative)
Yes bloggers on both sides supported (Score:3, Insightful)
Which makes it even more rediculous the Democrats by and large sunk it! Take a look at the list of people voting against, hardly any were Republicans.
This bill being killed was all about the people not in power disliking the freedom blogs had to say what they wished, the freedom of blogs on thier own side be damned. Perhaps the Republicans would have acted the same in the same position, bu
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but if you read the article, and the links it shouldn't be a surprise. They said they were betrayed by their own side (this doesn't say which side is theirs, you have to read more to guess). In other links from that page the listed all the democrats who voted for this, and asked supporters call and thank them - no mention of republicans. There was no mention that most republicans supported this.
All that is fair, but I wish people who be honest when they are betrayed by their own side and defended
Money and speech (Score:2)
Then again, the court has decided that spending money is a form of speech, which is the basis of restrictions on campaign finance laws, so perhaps we're really saying the same thing.
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:2, Insightful)
Under campaign finance laws they would only be required to divulge sources of funding.
Even that could be well hidden, say, a voting machine vendor who heavily favors a certain presidential candidate could take out a lot of lucrative ad-space on a site, so long as the views expressed on the site coincide with those of the company.
*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudg
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it isn't. It's about exactly what it says it's about, which is exempting some opinionated dude in his pajamas from having to hire lawyers and accountants in order to exercise his first amendment right to free speech. The fact is that in the last election cycle the Dems got their asses handed to them due to their inability to uphold the status quo, which is (was) being able to rely on the main stream media to play the role of gatekeepers w/ regard to the message being put forth by a candidate or organization.
This isn't about trashing McCain Feingold, it's about preserving an idividual's freedom of speech within the political process. There is no difference between a blogger and some dude in a bar rattling on about politics.
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:5, Insightful)
That's too bad, because the more I look at it, the more convinced I become that it's not possible to preserve an individual's freedom of speech without first trashing McCain/Feingold.
Upholding Campaign Finance law was the second-biggest mistake of the Supreme Court in the last ten years. The first, obviously, was their brain-dead Emminent Domain ruling. Why is it that the so-called "progressives" in American politics seem to be the ones in the biggest hurry to take my rights away?
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, money doesn't win elections in America. That's why we didn't get Perot as President. It's why Forbes didn't get the nomination.
Correlation does not imply causation. Read "Freakonomics". It covers this specifically in one section, and shows you the statistics. Money is not the cause of winning elections.
Re:Uh, that was the WHOLE POINT (Score:5, Insightful)
Media favor is probably the most important factor in elections... money is important because it can influence media favor to some degree.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Insightful)
The linked article appears to be factual and fair, but the article synopsis certainly isn't.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:4, Insightful)
not even Fox? (Score:3, Funny)
Fox wouldn't LIE to me, would it??
Yes, not even Fox? (Score:3, Insightful)
Many on the far right would claim that fox's slogan is in fact a play on the rest of media claiming it is fair and balanced, while in fact biased to the left. (Witness CBS releasing and standing by fake documents in the last election)
These are the same people who will call Fox mid left, and everyone else extreme left. That most of Europe would consider the US media mid right is not important to them.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Informative)
Paragraph (22) of section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(22)) is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: `Such term shall not include communications over the Internet.'.
The existing law section 22 is:
(22) Public communication. The term 'public communication' means a communication by means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing, or telep
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:4, Insightful)
If '/' leans right, why does /. lean left? (Score:3, Funny)
Then why isn't it called "\." ?
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Informative)
This is how it always works. It's called a poison pill [wikipedia.org], and both sides do it. You put together a basically good-sounding bill with some riders which are either pork or serve special interest groups. Then if it doesn't pass, you say "Look! The other side is against national security / eductation / freedom of speech / whatever."
Besides, the fact is the campaign finance law does regulate speech. It limits parties' freedom to "speak" (e.g. buy advertising) for a candiate. Now, I happen to be in favor of this particular restriction of speech because I think it serves a greater good in preserving democracy (including free speech) in the long run... but you have to realize a lot of people are against the campaign finance laws and see them as an unwarranted limitation on free speech.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Interesting)
For the rest of you, if you're in favor of regulations on free speech, then just come out and say so. Explain your reasoning, talk about extenuating circumstances, just like timeOday has done. Stop pretending that this isn't a limitation on free speech.
The Supreme Court has struck down numerous campaign finance laws over first amendment issues (Buckley vs US, anyone?). Former house majority leader (Democrat) Dick Gephardt responded by suggesting that the First Amendment be changed to allow campaign finance limits. The current SCOTUS has ruled that campaign finance IS a limitation on free speech, but that extenuating circumstances (making things appear less corrupt) justifies it.
For my part, I'm opposed to any attempt by do-gooder meddlers to limit free speech just because they think that paid advertising == mind control. Inevitably, this is an attempt to control and limit debate and free discussion. The FEC has ruled that blogs will be regulated and controlled by the campaign finance laws, and the defeat of this bill (to stop the menace of banner ads and popups) reaffirms that this is the Law of the Land.
If you're a Democrat, do the decent thing and be embarrassed. Your party isn't right all the time, any more than Libertarians or Republicans are. Admit that your side got this one wrong, contribute to the EFF [eff.org], and go to local party meetings and tell them that as a loyal democrat you're astonished that you'd see normally smart good people doing this.
I'm a Republican, but I try to have the intellectual honesty to admit when my party has it wrong-- which we often are. You're doing your party a service by keeping them honest.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pretty disturbing
So see a shrink, and be sure to let us know how that works out for you. I think it's pretty AMAZING that this story got through with such a reverse slant in play. Is
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. It's always very disturbing that Slashdot article summaries contain clear political slants. At least, it's disturbing when the slant is biased against whatever political cults I happen to agree with. When it's slanted in their favor, it's just good journalism.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Informative)
You've got to be kidding. Slashdot has been blatantly partisan for years. Because it was leaning in a direction you agree with you obviously either missed it or ignored it.
So when a similar light-on-the-facts, misleading headline article appears to say something equally heinous about Republicans, that's okay. But if it happens to Democrats that constitutes a conspiracy?
Staying more on topic, I'd like to know why ANYONE in Congress is allowed to attach a rider that doesn't have a thing to do with the original bill. Congress would have to change their rules to prevent it, but both major parties apparently are addicted to this sort of nonsense.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:2)
mirror world? (Score:2)
is my understanding of u.s. politics so backwards? i would have expected the party breakdown to be 180degrees opoistite this...
can someone explain?
Re:mirror world? (Score:5, Insightful)
can someone explain?
Sure. In a nutshell, you've been lied to. I would never assert that the Republican party has always vote pro-Freedom (yeah, we wrote the Patriot Act. Sorry about that.), but censorship has often been a Democratic pastime. Remember, the DMCA was signed by a Democrat president, and the PMRC [wikipedia.org] was a pet project of Tipper Gore.
And yet, to hear liberal groups tell it, it's always the Evil Republicans (tm) who want to silence everyone. The truth is far more complex, but how often do you hear of both parties' sins?
P.S. I don't know which party Jack Thompson affiliates with. I won't blame either party for that nut.
Re:mirror world? (Score:5, Informative)
from TFWA:
So 1 democrat + 2 republicans = democratic project?
Re:mirror world? (Score:3, Insightful)
It does when the one Democrat was on every TV and radio show to explain how censoring kids' music would make them happier, healthier, and safer. I'm pretty sure she invented the phrase "think of the children!".
Both sides of the aisle were in on this one, but Tipper was definitely the starring attraction.
Re:mirror world? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, the DMCA was signed by a Democrat president
And passed by a Republican majority congress. The sins of both parties are legion, and whenever someone comes around to challenge the status quo, left or right, they band together and squash the threat.
It is so funny to me to listen to the Democratic Party's newly found fondness of federalism, where for 40 years prior they treated support of states' rights and federalism as mere code words for supporting racism and segregation, and out of touch with core American values. Now that they're outnumbered at the federal level, they have all kinds of respect for checks and balances and fiscal responsibility.
Re:mirror world? (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is that the bill would have allowed almost unlimited political spending on the Internet. The Republicans almost always have WAY more money than the Democrats, but how they can spend it is sharply constrained by campaign finance laws. The Democrats do not want to allow the Republicans to 'buy' the election by spending vast amounts of money on unregulated messages over the Internet.
Rep: "Pass this bill" so we can pay people to blog for us with no oversight.
D
Re:mirror world? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Insightful)
Which still makes it odd for Democrats to oppose it as far as I can tell. In my state the best funded 527 groups are liberal groups.
And this open a completely different can of worms: Campaign spending "reforms" are, IMO, unconstitutional nonsense. There's nothing in the freedom of speech clause that says its only free speech up to a certain artificially imposed spending limit. Things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre and lib
Re:Rewind a bit (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527c
Note that of the top 10, only numbers 4,5 and 7 are Republican and only one, 9, is reasonably non-partisan.
Re:Rewind a bit (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Rewind a bit (Score:3, Informative)
Republicans can be against a Union, yet still support the views of the working class, or be against a conservationist group yet still want environmental protection.
Re:equally deep pockets on both sides (Score:3, Interesting)
"Most liberal of parties" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Most liberal of parties" (Score:5, Insightful)
Myself, I vote for politicians (while holding my nose), not for parties.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Informative)
The bill doesn't say "bloggers can post what they like." It says "all Internet communications are immune from federal election rules." That includes not just bloggers, but major media corporations and advertisers.
The community here knows that there's nothing magical about the Internet. Why should CNN or Fox be restricted in what they show on cable TV, but be unrestricted in streaming live online video to me over the same damned cable?
TFB needs to be more precise. But amendments weren't allowed, so it was voted down.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point. All restrictions on the abilities of the press to deliver information - regardless of medium - are patently unconstitutional and should be removed immediately.
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the "Old Game"
Like the Fillibuster, both parties have benefited from it over the years and are unlikely to put a stop to it, lest it come back to haunt them. Interestingly the GOP moved to end Judicial Fillibustering, which many old party members were loathe to do, even as the Dems frustrated them. They could find, in a decade, a reversal of political fortunes and find they
Re:Lovely Omission (Score:5, Insightful)
Bills have amendments for obvious reasons. If someone submits a bill and in the debate it is determined that there is a better way, the bill can be amended.
There's a few problems with "one and only agenda". First you have to have a defined agenda for the bill. Then you have to decide what falls in and what falls outside of that agenda. One important thing to remember is that it's impossible to amend a bill without the consent of the majority. You don't need a special rule to block 'riders', you just need Congresspeople who will vote against the amendments when they come up.
FEC....not the FCC (Score:5, Informative)
FEC - Federal Election Commission
FCC tells you what you can say on the airwaves. FEC tells you what a politician can say (during elections).
Learn the difference.
It's not just blogging! (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA, here's the full text of the bill:
That means that, if it had passed, anything posted on the Internet would be exempt from campaign finance laws. That means advertisements, editorials, etc. That means it would be perfectly legal for a political party to use campaign donations to hire people to write political blogs that they might not otherwise have written on their own time, initiative, and opinions. That means hiring people to comment on message boards and other people's blogs. In other words, it means astroturfing.
You may think this is a good thing, in which case it ought to be extended to the print and real worlds -- just remove all those limitations in the first place. But if you think we should be limiting the effect that money has on election campaigns, what makes the Internet special?
As it stands, anyone blogging on their own time already has free speech on the internet. So let's not cast this as a blogbing issue.
Re:It's not just blogging! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that it is uniquely easy for J. Random Citizen to disseminate his own message of rebuttal.
Re:It's not just blogging! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not just blogging! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not just blogging! (Score:2)
The only possible objection I would have to removing the limitations on print media, etc. is that there are certain kids and styles of media that actively engage the consumer, and others that passively wait to be engaged by the consumer.
When you're watching television, and a political advertisement comes on, you did not opt into receiving that communication. You did not seek it out, you did not take the initiative
Re:It's not just blogging! (Score:3, Insightful)
When you're watching television, and a political advertisement comes on, you did not opt into receiving that communication. You did not seek it out, you did not take the initiative to view it. The same is true of direct mail-- it came into your mailbox, and so you're going to at least give it a cursory look.
What makes those different than the so called "astroturfing" that is mentioned in the grandparent? Quite simply,
Re:It's not just blogging! (Score:3, Insightful)
But we're not just talking about blogs and individual sites.
This bill would have made it perfectly legal for the Democratic party to buy every single ad space on CNN. Obviously this is an extreme case -- it would be too expensive and wouldn't return on the investme
Re:It's not just blogging! (Score:2)
How does this affect me? Will I be told to stop if some political group decides that I have been funded to say such things? Will someone attem
Re:It's not just blogging! (Score:3, Informative)
It's all about where the money's coming from.
The Relevant Information (Score:3, Informative)
What a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
It is impossible for the Democrats to stop anything in the House.
Re:What a joke (Score:3, Interesting)
and while every single Democrat is against the war today - how was it that the authority to go to war went 99 to nothing in the senate?
I find it funny that on the War and the Patriot Act, the Dems VOTED lock-step with the Republicans, while a mere 2 years later, are violently opposed to the very things that they voted for?
Both parties suck in so many ways, its frightening.
Adults Vote Libertarian.
Re:What a joke (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot has come out since the vote on the authorization for Iraq. You already know it's not as simple an issue as you make it out to be, so I won't explain it again for you. As for the PATRIOT Act, there was no time to read the bill due to the way it was proposed. Days after 9/11, Democrats weren't about to vote against a bill that claimed to provide tools for fighting terrorism.
Political seppuku (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and at that time voting against something called the "PATRIOT Act" was political suicide.
But in some cases, seppuku [wikipedia.org] is the most honorable thing one can do.
Re:What a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Suspension Calendar is designed for bills that will have little to no objection, hence the limited debate and restriction on amendments. The two bills that passed are bills that the Suspension Calendar was designed for. Why the GOP chose Suspension Calendar for a bill that would obviously raise objections, I don't know, but thanks for helping me make my point.
Re:What a joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Legislation is one thing, enforcement is another.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Legislation is one thing, enforcement is anothe (Score:2)
Re:Legislation is one thing, enforcement is anothe (Score:2, Insightful)
All it takes is one example. They don't have to go after every blog. Just a couple of them. A couple of high profile prosecutions will make political blogging a different sort of beast. FACE didn't require that every abortion protestor be prosecuted. A few prosecutions and everyone with half a brain and something to lose will conform.
LK
The complexity of the issue (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the Supreme Court, campaign finance laws do not violate the 1st Amendment. The argument basically goes like this:
So, now we're talking about the Internet. And here's the problem:
If someone has a political blog, that is probably free speech.
If someone pays a large number of people to have political blogs to support their view, is that still free speech, or is that diluting free speech?
What's the difference between paying for an advertisement on television saying that "Candidate so-and-so likes to have sex with black people and make bastard babies, don't vote for him!" and a company buying up advertisement on the Internet saying the same thing?
So, while I don't think that either the Dems or the Repubs have noble interests at heart, this is an interesting challenge. Do you just say "The Internet doesn't have to worry about campaign finance", and give the possibility of the delution of "pure" free speech as discussed by the Supreme Court and previous campaign finance laws, or do you try and put some language saying "If you get money based on your political views, you have to reveal who did it and how much and can only accept X amount".
I'd rather see a law like the "truth in advertising" - if you're getting money for writing the blog/hosting an ad, you have to state on your web site where that comes from and how much. This way people who are just running ads can say "Google adsense", and those getting it from campaign groups can disclosed if they are a hired gun or not. Granted, there is more to the language than this, but this is just my thumbnail sketch, so if you need to split hairs, at least come up with your own complete language to cover the complexity of the issue
It's an interesting question, and one that *should* be debated for a good and long time. If you notice, this was the failure not of a majority but of a "mega-majority" of 2/3 to pass the bill. Some further debate and clarification of the language should make it palatable to that majority in the end, which I believe is perfectly reasonable.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.
More detailed information (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/3/11254
Note that the act can still be brought up for a vote under normal rules and passed. The defeat was under special rules intended to speed the process.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing that bothers me is the two party political system. Why wouldn't democrats want to protect our speech online? It seems all they're interested in is opposing the republicans these days (I used to be a republican, but I don't think they stand for conservatism anymore, so I'm libertarian/independent/non-incumbant now).
We need politicians that will bring us back to the freedoms our country enjoyed two hundred years ago, but everyone is interested in towing the party line--it seems even the voters. If you are of voting age, and in the US, please consider third-party candidates in the '06 congressional elections. I want to be part of a larger group than 0.5% of the population.
Not sure the dems were ever friends of free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not sure the dems were ever friends of free spe (Score:5, Insightful)
And a Republican congress passed the law to begin with. Both major parties have similar agendas in this regard--most people, sadly, choose to ignore that fact and simply spout "my party is all that is good and light. Your party is teh suck" tripe.
What constitutes a 'political' blog? (Score:2)
Could you, as an individual blogger, endorse a candidate or discuss political issues on your blog? Or are you enjoined from making any political statements on your blog because that is now included as part of someone's election campaign?
How much of one's blog would have to apply to other things in order to not run afoul of this?
I'm a little mystefied as the article is unclear. On the one hand, I can see that they don't want massive campaigns by parties which cir
READ THE DAMN ARTICLE (Score:5, Informative)
You can still post your political party bashing blog. Now you just can't get paid insane amounts of money to do so with out the backing party acknowledging it.
Nothing to do with your rights. Everything to do with campaign finances.
-Rick
Question for the poster... (Score:2, Funny)
Aaaargh! (Score:3, Interesting)
And then came the 90's.
Bill Clinton still did many good things -- but one of the worst things he did (IMNSHO) was to cause the Democratic party to lose its identity. He frequently took Republican initiatives, rubbed off the serial numbers, and called it "Good." Then came Gore & Kerry -- both of whose campaign platforms could be summed up as "I'm not George W. Bush."
Then we have stuff like the DMCA and the Sonny Bono act, both of which should have been squashed by traditional Democrats... and instead are supported by them.
I'm disgusted. Bring back a JFK. Bring back a Roosevelt! Hell -- even Carter! He made some really dumb mistakes, but nobody doubts his sincere willingness to try to do what he felt was best -- as his continued works with Habitat for Humanity show.
Instead, we get Ted (The One That Wouldn't Go Away) Kennedy, we get Tom (I'm a waste of space and air) Daschle, we get antagonists, footdraggers and backpeddalers.
God, I hope McCain runs next time. I'll vote for him before most any Democratic contender I can think of. Perhaps that's why I'm now a registered independent. *sigh*
IT'S NOT ABOUT PROTECTING FREE SPEECH (Score:5, Insightful)
The amendment would have created a loophole in campaign finance reform and allowed unlimited political spending on the web. The amendment would actually suppress free speech to the extent that independent views could be drowned out with politically financed astro-turfing.
In the fine tradition of many other laws and bills that have surfaced over the past five years, the intent of this amendment was the exact opposite of that implied by its title. If Orwell were alive, he'd be rolling in his grave.
Slashdot: faux infotainment for nerds.
Re:IT'S NOT ABOUT PROTECTING FREE SPEECH (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's why it should have passed (Score:3, Insightful)
ifwm said:
I am glad we are now talking about campaign finance and not "the Democrats are stealing our fr33doms!!1".
Democrats and Campaign Reform... (Score:3, Insightful)
New campaign laws seek to limit the type/amout/method of information being disseminated in the weeks directly before election. Let me give an example...
Lets say a large group of bloggers decides they want to impact an election. 2 days before an election one anonymously blogs that Candidate X was accused of date rape in college and that the accuser is afraid to come forward. The day before the election, all of the other bloggers pick up the story and start talking about it in huge numbers. Then, the day of the election, every voter has to make a decision of risking to vote for a date rapist. I know this sounds silly, but it was a very effective strategy against a college student body president campaign at my alma mater only a few years back. A similar strategy was employed against a Republican candidate for house in 1996 in NC (although it wasnt bloggers, it was a mass mailing).
While there is no precedent against bloggers, it seems silly - I think - to give them a complete immunity when it is very possible (if not inevitable) that such an immunity would create a haven of this kind of attack.
The most important speech that must be protected is the vote.
Dems save /. (Score:3, Insightful)
If this bill passed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some PAC raises one million dollars from unlimited, unreported donations.
They use the money to pay 1000 bloggers to promote their issue.
They don't need to report that these bloggers work for them, or how much they get paid.
Rinse. Repeat.
Is this free speech?
Re:If this bill passed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because it's pull vs. push!! (Score:3, Interesting)
That is entirely unlike TV advertising where my purchase of all ads means a specific number of viewers WILL be watching those ads.
People seek out what to read on the internet. They are told what they will watch on TV. That is why campaign finance reforms for the internet are utterly ridiculous and harmful.
The blocking of this bill is all about Democrats feeling that conservative blogs are, by and large, handing their ass to them on a
Neither party respects our liberties (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is that neither party respects our liberties (i.e., fully embracing both the enumerated and unenumerated, and retained rights as outlined in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution). They tell us to look at the US Constitution and ask "where are you given that right?", rather than asking the question Madison would have, which is, "where did you give up that right?"
Both political parties have a shared monopoly on power (I think we called this a duopoly in Econ 101), and will resist any attempt to take away this power. Yes, they will jostle for advantage over one another, but when this duopoly is threatened they will unite against it (see, opposition to any redistricting reform by the mainstreams of both the Republican and Democratic parties in California).
Looking back at the 2004 election, the mainstream of the Democratic party was hit right between the eyes by the power of the Internet and Blogs, as demonstrated by the insurgent campaign of Howard Dean. The look at this and wonder what it might have been
Couple this with that there are still a few Republicans who value liberty (as understood through the lens of enumerated and unenumerated rights), over staying in power, and you see why this got fair broader support among them.
This isn't the first time something like this happened. Rewind back to the election of 1968, and TV was the breakout media. Eugene McCarthy used it effectively in New Hampshire to force Johnson from the primary process. Nixon and Wallace (running one of the most effective 3rd party campaigns since Teddy Roosevelt (even if I despise what he represented), used it to great benefit.
So, in the Congress following this election what happened? An incredible level of restrictions on TV in political campaigns were put into place, which effectively put access to TV in the hands of those in power.
Like McCain-Feingold (and I say this with the greatest respect for both of these gentleman), giving the FEC oversight of Bloggers will only diminish the level of free speech and dialog in the public square. The internet and blogs dramatically reduced the barriers to entry to commentators, because as A.J. Liebling noted, "Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one." All of a sudden, a whole lot of people now could own the equivalent of a printing press. And the result is as you would expect (applying Sturgeon's Law that 90% of everything is crap), with a lot of nonsenses and garbage spewing forth, but a few gems mixed up in the overall stream.
If I had my magic legislative wand, and could make one change to improve the political process in this country, I would wave it and do away with our FEC as it exists and our various restrictions on political spending and embracing Justice Brandise maxim, "sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the best policeman", I would require the following:
1. That within 24 hours of any political donation being made, that this fact be posted for all to see and search on the Internet. Any legislation in which this party has an interest will also be identified. If this donation was made by a PAC, then the membership of that PAC must be clearly visible (i.e. I can follow the money).
2. For scheduled meetings, 24 hours in advance, and for unscheduled meetings within 24 hours, any meeting with a lobbyist (defined as someone educating on an issue or requesting legislative action) will be disclosed for all to search on the Internet. The topic of this conversation will be disclosed along with any legislation discussed or related to the topic of conversation. The source of funding for this lobbyist, organization, or individual, must be made transparent, all the way back up the chain. If Lobbyist A was hired by Organization X who received funding from PACS 1, 2, and 3, who in turned received funding from PACS 4, 5, and 6, I should be able to follow it all the way back to the companies and individuals making the donations.
3. The calendar of all members of the Legislative and Executive branches, along with their staff members, will be made available and search-able on the Internet. Common, unique identifiers will be used to enable cross referencing.
Yours,
Jordan
This reminds me of the "motor-voter" debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to long ago, an idea was presented to link voter registration with getting your driver's license. The underlying idea, reportedly, was that, by making it easier for the average adult to register to vote, there would be a greater population of registered American voters thus making elections more reflective of "the will of the people".
Seems like a good idea really, but the debates on C-SPAN went a little differently
The Republicans were not happy and saying that this was just a ruse to get a disproportionate number of Democrats registered to vote. The implication is kind of interesting. Apparantly, Republicans (and likely Democrats) were of the opinion that persons of the GOP were more likely than Democrats to register without the assistance of the "motor-voter" legislation - at least that was my interpretation.
With the present situation, the implication seems to be that Republicans have more cash reserves than Democrats and, by making blogs not susceptible to campaign fund contribution limits, they can more easily use that advantage.
So, both sides seek to exploit a "hidden" advantage in a particular legislation. It's like the old saying, for every endeavor there is a "good reason" and the "real reason".
and the games go on
How is this the Democrats fault? (Score:3, Insightful)
That aside, it's not clear to me that the rules are such a bad thing. They basically say that if a political party spends campaign money on the Web then it has to be reported - just as the case if said party spends money on TV ads. This is perfectly reasonable. Despite what some party-funded astroturfers would have you believe, this does NOT restrict J. Random Blogger from posting whatever he wants. It just says that if he gets money from the RNC, the RNC has to report it.
Re:How is this the Democrats fault? (Score:3)
So basicly, on this specific issue - Democrats = Hardcore Facists
Bloggers... (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat after me: Government has NO intrinsic authority or dominion over anybody; We The People are the ultimate and final source of ALL political power and authority... the government has ONLY what authority we grant it; and what is granted may be taken back at any time. Sovereign individuals not belong to, and are not subjects of, the United States government... they answer to us, not the other way around.
Slashdotters conspiracy search (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's a switch (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's a switch (Score:2)
(At least not in this case, anyway)
Re:That's a switch (Score:3, Informative)
There are lines between political speech and paid political speech. As long as somebody is speaking his/her mind without being paid, free speech for political reasons is nearly absolute (short of slander and libel, but even then, the burden of proof bar is set pretty high). As soon as money changes hands (e.g. a person being paid to say that a candidate is wonderful, someone being paid to say that they us
Re:Freedom of speech had nothing to do with it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Somewhere, somone said..... (Score:3, Interesting)
If Moveon.org isn't a sucessful grassroots organization then what is? Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Actually, the law was problematic since it delinated the Internet from all other media, effectively allowing anything goes on the largest and widest media ever known. This was a bad bill and should have been killed.
Re:That's a lot of trouble to go to (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow the parent was modded 'insightful'?
Ignorance has covered the land, eh whos suprised?
This bill in NO WAY will effect your ability to post whatever you want on your website, UNLESS you recieve money from somebody in a political party to post said content. You can post or publish ANYTHING you like, as long as you do it with your money. In no way would that restrain your ability to read other people who run, and edit THEIR OWN blogs. And then, EVEN IF these websites recieved such money, the only thing you would notice is the disclosure of WHO paid money.
For some reason, this is being posted with a title that disparages democrats, when in actuality they struck down a bill that would have made the funding source similar to CLOSED-SOURCE software, ie you cant look at it. Or by striking down this bill, the funding stream FOR EVERYONE has to BY LAW be disclosed just like everywhere else, ie OPEN-SOURCE. I mean isnt that the republican line on all this Patriot Act smoke and mirrors? The basic line of thinking, if you arent hiding anything in your funding sources, why wouldnt you want to disclose them? If you stopped listening to the rhetoric, you wouldnt get caught up in such inconsistancies of logic.
Stop being such an uninformed alarminst!
On a side note, I stopped having stories posted by 'Zonk' display on my slashdot homepage, because they were just garbage and it made me start to stay away from this site. The only way I noticed this article was by logging in on a computer that wasnt mine. It was amazing how much removing just that single editor made a difference in the percieved, and actual, quality of slashdot.