A bill to keep the internet free.

[David S]

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
H.R. 1606 would exempt communications made over the Internet from the definition of a `public communication' in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (`BCRA') (Public Law 107-155). The purpose of this legislation is to ensure the Internet can continue to grow and continue to be a free and positive force in our political system. H.R. 1606 would allow bloggers and other online activists to express their view on the Internet without having to fear they might run afoul of our campaign finance laws.

If you support this bill you can tell your congress-beings (i.e. congressmen, congresswomen, representatives, Senators, etc) at;
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=22

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Horrible bill.  Unpaid volunteer bloggers don't fall afoul of the campaign  finance laws now.  All this does is enable paid-for internet activity to be unregulated by the campaign finance laws, and while I think those laws need to be severely reformed so as to require greater transparency and less limits on where money comes from, carving out yet another special exemption for the Internet is ludicrous.

[David S]

Horrible bill.  Unpaid volunteer bloggers don't fall afoul of the campaign  finance laws now.  All this does is enable paid-for internet activity to be unregulated by the campaign finance laws, and while I think those laws need to be severely reformed so as to require greater transparency and less limits on where money comes from, carving out yet another special exemption for the Internet is ludicrous.

No one should be regulated by the campaign finance reform laws.
BTW since the BCRA passed the spending on campaigns is higher than ever.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ideally there should be no limits on what you spend, but you should have to tell where you got the money.  However, my primary objection is that it special cases one particular form of political speech, and even worse, removes any requirements of transparency that exist on it now.  Do you really want thousands of anonymous supposedly independent attack websites showing up on the Internet in 2008?  That's what this bill will do, turn the Internet into a political cesspool into which all the money that people would rather spend otherwise on political speech will pour it into, and with no ability to trace the poisons that will be let loose to their sources.  This bill will effectively kill amateur political blogging, because there will no way to distinguish the amateurs from the pros, so none of them will be trusted.

I'm all for removing the limits on campaign spending, but doing it in this one limited area creates more problems than it solves.

[Brandon H]

My understanding is that without this bill, you would not be able to endorse a candidate on your website without registering with the FEC. There is a chance your (Ernest's) signature endorsing a candidate would be illegal, though that may be an extreme point of view.

What distinguishes amateur bloggers from professional bloggers? The fact that someone is being paid to write a blog or is there more to it? I have a blog but I don't get paid for it and it isn't completely political and I am sure many people here can say the same. If though I hardly have any regular viewers, I would hope that I could still endorse candidates. And there are probably some amatuer bloggers that I would trust more than professional bloggers anyway.

Given I am on both the EFF's and DownsizeDC's mailing lists, I support this bill. DownsizeDC's blog says this bill may be voted on in the House on Thursday.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Your understanding is wrong.  Unpaid volunteer activities are not considered as campaign expenditures under the law.  At worst, the law might could use a clarifying statement to the common sense effect that putting things in personal type blogs and the like are to be considered as unpaid volunteer activities, just in case the FEC gets squirrelly in their regulations, since one does not often use the phrases "Federal Election Commission" and "common sense" together.  However, giving a blanket exemption to campaign finance laws that applies only to the internet is a recipe for disaster.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, although I do have some reservations.

DailyKos is strongly for this bill, obviously.

[David S]

Ideally there should be no limits on what you spend, but you should have to tell where you got the money.  However, my primary objection is that it special cases one particular form of political speech, and even worse, removes any requirements of transparency that exist on it now.  Do you really want thousands of anonymous supposedly independent attack websites showing up on the Internet in 2008?  That's what this bill will do, turn the Internet into a political cesspool into which all the money that people would rather spend otherwise on political speech will pour it into, and with no ability to trace the poisons that will be let loose to their sources.  This bill will effectively kill amateur political blogging, because there will no way to distinguish the amateurs from the pros, so none of them will be trusted.

I'm all for removing the limits on campaign spending, but doing it in this one limited area creates more problems than it solves.

Are you saying that free speech on the internet should be sacrificed so that it will be just as restricted as other media?

[MODU]

I would have to oppose this bill.  Official communication made by/on behalf of the candidate online should fall under the same requirements as the rest of the media.  This isn't a free speech issue, but rather another ploy to get around the campaign election laws.

[David S]

I would have to oppose this bill.  Official communication made by/on behalf of the candidate online should fall under the same requirements as the rest of the media.  This isn't a free speech issue, but rather another ploy to get around the campaign election laws.

What part of the campaign election laws are you talking about?

Further, what's so bad about defending free speech wherever and whenever we can?

[MODU]

I'm sure we've discussed this exact amendment before, but anyway, here we go again.

This is what they are wanting to change:

(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 telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising.

The amendment would exempt the internet from public communications, which would allow the candidates to go through third-party sources to push their campaign message, but not record it as part of their expenditures.  Where as they would have to account for their advertising expenses for every other form of media, they are trying to giving the internet a special status in order to bypass the campaign finance regulations under the FEC and follow-on Acts. 

This has nothing to do with "free speech" (unless you are defining "free" as in not having to pay anything) and everything to do with politicians trying to cheat the system . . . AGAIN.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are you saying that free speech on the internet should be sacrificed so that it will be just as restricted as other media?

Your seem to be advocating libertine-ism rather than libertarianism.  I'm saying that this will do much more to foul up the Internet than it will to help free speech.  This is because it will help bad actors to hide their efforts to libel, sully, and defame their opponents rather than debating the merits of their positions.  We need fewer limits and more sunshine in campaign finance laws, but removing limits without letting the sun shine in so as to allow people to see who is behind political speech will make a putrid mess that will be worse than system we have now.

What is wrong about asking people who engage in political discourse to own up to what they are doing?

[Sam Spade]

Ernest and I agree on some things and we disagree on some things.

In terms of this bill, its effect on Internet politicking and on the needed solutions in campaign finance reform, we agree 100%. 

I couldn't say it better myself, frankly.

[Speed of Sound]

This legislation needs to be passed, ill throw Holden the heads up now.

[David S]

This bill is intended to protect the internet against some of the restrictions of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. The BCRA is over 500 pages long in pdf format and much of it is written in legalese. Have any of you actually  read and understood the entire thing?  If you have trouble understanding it, its because it was intentionally made long and confusing for the exact purpose of making it confusing. Bear in mind that the entire US constitution including all amendments and the declaration of independence fits into a pocket sized booklet less than 60 pages long.

At the very least, BCRA puts some restrictions on mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election.

527 organizations however, are exempted from many of the provisions of BCRA. (Remember the "Swift Boats". ) These are big money organizations and apparently they are still free to engage in mudslinging.

The internet is a poor man's communication tool. Even someone of modest means can create a website that potentially reaches millions of readers. Why can't they have the same exemptions the 527s get?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The internet is a poor man's communication tool. Even someone of modest means can create a website that potentially reaches millions of readers. Why can't they have the same exemptions the 527s get?

Why should 527's have those exceptions?  You agree that they serve mainly to sling unaccountable mud.

In any case, a private person creating an amateur website doesn't fall under the Federal Election Campaign Act that BRCA amended. His labor in creating the website doesn't count as a campaign contribution at all, and his webhosting fees shouldn't come even close to the $1,000 level that triggers FECA's reporting requirements.  (The lower dollar figures in FECA are for individual contributions to committees, not individual efforts that aren't coordinated thru a committee.)  This "the Internet is in danger unless we pass this law" is a red herring that is intended to help this bill to pass so that the political pros can sling even more mud while hiding their fingerprints.  It does zilch to help out the poor individual blogger, because he's not at risk.

[David S]

An update from the Liberty Committee:

March 15, 2006


The elites have become afraid of you.  Whether they are in Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Paris or Sydney, the political and media elites are afraid you will eventually know too much and say too much.  Which is why they are determined to control the Internet in whatever ways they can.

Tomorrow afternoon, the U.S. House will vote on the Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606).  We strongly urge a "yes" vote, as do organizations such as Gun Owners of America, National Taxpayers Union, National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, National Rifle Association, and American Conservative Union.

H.R. 1606 is needed because federal courts have ordered the Federal Election Commission to regulate "electioneering communications" on the Internet because of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold). If H.R. 1606 fails to become law, your Web site or blog could be shut down for the 30 days prior to a primary election and the 60 days prior to a general election should you express "electioneering communications."  And any political e-mail you send during those times supporting or denouncing a candidate could also be disallowed.

So, grass-roots political activism will be silenced.  But the media elite, such as the New York Times, won't be muzzled because they are exempt as members of the "official press."  They will be allowed to continue writing editorials about various candidates, but you won't have approval from the State to say a word.

By the way, The New York Times has an editorial today urging a "no" vote on H.R. 1606.

The vote will be held tomorrow afternoon.  Please urge your U.S. representative to vote "yes" on H.R. 1606.

To send your message, go to
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=8585676&type=CO

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For a change I get to say: good for the New York Times!  This bill has nothing to do with protecting individuals but everything to do with making things easier for political organizations such as... the Liberty Committee, the Gun Owners of America, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Right to Life Committee,the Family Research Council, the National Rifle Association, and the American Conservative Union.  In other words, they're upset because they'll have to report their paid political activites on the Internet and have them subjected to the same restrictions as if they were done by traditional media, when they were hoping to exploit a loophole created by shoddy FEC regulations.

[Democratic Hawk]

Free at the point of use would be nice

Dave

[MODU]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

HAHAHA . . . Wow, talk about a desperate attempt . . . right in the first sentence!

[David S]

All newspapers including the New York Times are exempt from the BCRA. The Times doesn't mind inflicting BCRA on others, so long as it does not affect them.


Modu and Earnest you still haven't mentioned whether or not you have actually read and understood the BCRA.

What do you think BCRA is intended to do?

Lastly, is is your intent to muzzle the NRA, Taxpayers Union and the 80 other organizations that joined in the lawsuit against BCRA?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I've read FECA as amended by BRCA.  At least with the New York Times one knows the source of their speech and funding, with many of these political advocacy groups one can't be sure of that.  In any case, those groups are being totally dishonest in implying that private bloggers could run afoul of the law unless it is changed.  I want those groups to acknowledge who is funding their political speech.  If knowing the source would cause those sources to be muzzled because they wouldn't speak if their speech was traceable to them, I have no problem with that.

[David S]

NRA is funded by 3 million members and advertisers. You want a list of all of them?

By the way, how do you know where the New York Times gets its funding from? Just like the NRA it has subscribers and advertisers who provide funds.

BWT2 are you a politician?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, I'm not a politican.  However, with your taste for hyperbole, perhaps you should be if you aren't.

Even if simple membership in the NRA were to be considered making a political contribution, which I am fairly certain it does not, the membership dues of the NRA are below the level at which they would be required to be reported by the NRA, which makes perfect sense, since there is no point in anyone being deluged with such financial trivia, so your 3 million members being reported is a flimsy strawman.  Similarly, those who advertise in the NRA magazines aren't treated any differently than those who advertise in the New York Times.

Now, can you explain why people should be able to anonymously throw political mud?

[David S]

I mentioned mudslinging to point out that that BCRA did not stop it nor did it prevent the big money spending by special interests. In my opinion it was not intended to stop either.

As a little aside when it comes to mudslinging the two primary parties did much more of it during the 04 presidential campaign than the 3rd party candidates. If you watched Bush and Kerry debate you saw two men attacking each other. If you watched the Libertarian and Green party debate, you saw two men debate the issues, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, but always respectful of each other and never throwing mud.