Bloggers have been blogging about the Federal Election Commission for months, worried about whether the bureaucracy planned to regulate political activity on the Internet (blogs included) under the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform law. But according to the Chicago Tribune, there’s nothing for me to worry about:
Web loggers, who pride themselves on freewheeling political activism, might face new federal rules on candidate endorsements, online fundraising and political ads, though bloggers who don’t take money from political groups would not be affected…The FEC also is considering whether to require Web loggers, called bloggers, to disclose whether they get money from a campaign committee or a candidate and to reveal whether they are being paid to write about certain candidates or solicit contributions on their behalf.
(Emphasis added)
I don’t plan on taking money from political groups, so I guess I won’t be affected by the rules.
The collective blogosphere may serve my head on a platter for saying this, but if you take money from political groups to blog, you should be subject to the regulations. I think the so-called campaign finance reform law violates the First Amendment, but just like hate crime laws, it must be applied equally. Bloggers are not exempt.
Hey, watch the neck! 
(Hat tip: Lexie)
Related posts:
- Federal Election Commission vs. Freedom of Speech
- Bloggers United Against the FEC - Online Coalition
- FEC v. The Loud and Unruly
- Liberal and Conservative Bloggers United
Update: Just to be clear, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being paid by a political organization or candidate to blog. It’s called “a job.” But you should disclose the fact.
Update II: Red asks, “Should blogs trust the FEC?”
I agree with you, La Shawn. The only thing I worry about is whether or not they’ll take it to that extra step including bloggers who don’t take payment from politicos.
Comment by RepJ — 06.01.05 @ 3:58 pm
LB,
I am with you. There should be disclosure, when money changes hands, and if the money comes from a regulated source, so be it.
But then, I think certain lefty blogs should have in big letters on their mastheads “A Division of Soros Political Engingeering, LLC”…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.01.05 @ 4:10 pm
Take the money, follow the rules. It’s what we expect of everybody else so it’s only fair.
Comment by Mark La Roi — 06.01.05 @ 4:14 pm
Some folk’s were looking forward to their checks… now, doesn’t look so good. Armstrong Williams anyone. Who?!?!?
Comment by stephen johnson — 06.01.05 @ 5:02 pm
While I don’t agree with the opinion, I respect it.
I don’t think people’s right to free speech should be abridged or cut-off just because it was paid for by an organization/union/company/party/activist group/person/entity/set of groups
While free wheelers are free wheeling, why can’t people trying to get their message out say what they have to say to? Maybe I misunderstand?
Comment by Baklava — 06.01.05 @ 5:41 pm
If you want to play in the political sandbox, wherein reside PR machines with far greater resources than we have, be prepared to play by the same rules.
Is it fair? Dunno. But I do know this; people are paid princely sums hourly to engineer political campaigns and they aren’t about to give up their gravy train to every Tom, Dick and Harry with a laptop.
I don’t know why anyone thought there would be another result.
Comment by stephen johnson — 06.01.05 @ 6:04 pm
You mean there’s money to be had!?! I guess I missed that e-mail….
Comment by Mad Mikey — 06.01.05 @ 7:26 pm
I don’t know La Shawn. Campaign finance “reform” is a body of law unblemished by success so far, at least in achieving its stated objective of reducing the influence of big money. I would be careful of the Chicago Tribune and the FEC on this one.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 06.01.05 @ 10:26 pm
La Shawn blogs about whether the FEC vs. Bloggers situation has been overhyped… I didn’t want to […]
Pingback by Matt Margolis — 06.01.05 @ 11:18 pm
La Shawn:
You should be worried.
There are those control freaks like John McCain who would go so far as to consider YOUR TIME as a form of POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION if you speak in favor of a candidate - even if you are not being paid. Look over your shoulder - people like McCain do not want ANY political speech that is not filtered by their Party.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 06.01.05 @ 11:55 pm
I’ll have to agree with Frank regarding McCain. He’s pretty thin-skinned like LBJ. But Frank, do you think McCain might be looking over his shoulder at his Goldwaterite constituents? That ought be good for a laugh if he gambled it all and lost at his next election, heh
Comment by Andy — 06.02.05 @ 12:23 am
“I think the so-called campaign finance reform law violates the First Amendment, but just like hate crime laws, it must be applied equally.”
If the campaign finance reform law violates the first amendment, it should not be applied at all! Why are you so willing to give up ground to an unconstitutional law, simply because it won’t affect you?
Comment by Greg — 06.02.05 @ 10:38 am
LaShawn, you are correct. We should all be held to the same standards. But we do need to see the Campaign Finance laws changed dramatically. My solution: unrestricted, unlimited personal cash and in-kind contributions with full disclosure with criminal penalties for those convicted of breaking the disclosure laws with malice.
Comment by JIm Pfaff — 06.02.05 @ 2:50 pm
FEC v. Bloggers: Regulation Under Current Law Appr
La Shawn Barber stepped out on a limb by saying that bloggers who are paid by political organizations should be regulated per recommended FEC guidelines. I agree with her. The current campaign finance law would apply in such circumstance.
But McCa…
Trackback by Opinion Times — 06.02.05 @ 3:05 pm
…I thought this was something major .. but thanks to La Shawn Barber (who examined the situation), we have learned that this will only effect…
Pingback by The Political Teen — 06.04.05 @ 3:09 pm
I think the FEC is okay on this one. Political bloggers that get paid are really agents of the body that’s paying for them, and if those bodies are regulated, so should be their agents.
I don’t think it abridges free speech for the following reason: If I’m writing about whatever I want and getting paid by the GOP (or DNC) I feel like people should know that. I can still write whatever I want, with no fear of the government cracking down on me. If the GOP is telling me what to write, my readers should know that too.
Comment by Jim — 06.07.05 @ 8:14 pm