Thanks to Republicans in Congress, political bloggers may get an exemption from campaign finance laws. (Also see Beltway Blogroll)
This issue has been on the table for a couple of years. We bloggers have been pleading our case since last year. Brief background:
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is considering extending the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to the Internet. With the complicity of our own George Bush, Congress violated the First Amendment by making law limiting certain groups from campaigning for political candidates in the months leading up to an election and limiting “soft money†contributions, although Congress is expressly prohibited from “…abridging the freedom of speech, or…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government.â€
In essence, bloggers would be regulated by the government. A favorable post about a particular candidate could be classified as political advertising. A link to the politician’s site could be considered a campaign contribution. You can imagine the chilling effect this would have on the blogosphere. As you know, political speech is exactly the kind intended for First Amendment protection.
The political blogosphere is very partisan, but a threat to our First Amendment rights has brought liberal and conservative bloggers together. So what’s up with liberal politicians?
As “tolerant” and open-minded as many liberals claim to be, they are afraid of actual free speech. What they support is thought police-like control over speech deemed offensive to their left-leaning and sometimes ungodly sensibilities.
Conservatives and people of faith have been putting up with liberal domination of mainstream media (MSM) for years. Conservatives turned to AM radio and talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, who saw an existing market, filled a niche, and now dominates that market.
Liberal Air America, a pitiful excuse for a radio network, tried to cater to a market that didn’t exist, was recently embroiled in a scandal (stealing money from poor black kids in New York), and despite the early hype from friends in high MSM places, still couldn’t get advertisers. (Liberals aren’t doing too well in the think tank market, either.)
[Note: Michelle Malkin and Brian Maloney covered the Air America/Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club scandal extensively, but they don't have categories for their blog posts. 
Update: Amy of Gentle Whisper did what I was too lazy busy to do. Thanks! ]
Unlike liberal National Public Radio, supported by taxpayers, Air America at least tried to do it the capitalist’s way. They get kudos for that.
Memo to Dems in Congress who support censorship: this is America.
Love it or leave it, libs.
(Hat tip: PajamaHadin. Also see RedState’s FEC section. Blogger Mike Krempasky has testified before Congress about this issue. Bill Frist blogs about freedom. )
Related posts:
- LBC on CNN
- Bloggers United Against the FEC – Online Coalition
- FEC v. The Loud and Unruly
- FEC v. Bloggers Hoopla Overhyped?
Update II: I still want to know about your experiences as members of the virtual “Army of Davids.” Thanks for the comments and e-mail so far.
Update III: E-mail from Don Seymour, Jr., Congressman John Boehner’s press secretary:
House Prepares for Action on “Blogger Bill” — Online Freedom of Speech Act (H.R. 1606)
In case you were unaware … just wanted to give you all a heads up that House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has scheduled consideration of the Online Freedom of Speech Act (likely on Wednesday), legislation that would free bloggers and other Internet communicators from Federal Elections Commission (FEC) regulation. The bill was introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). Because the FEC is preparing to issue new regulations governing political speech over the Internet, this is an important bill that will allow bloggers to express their views on the Internet without fear of running afoul of our campaign finance laws.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 19 comments }
Will a candidate in 2006 have enough Moxie to challenge McCain-Feingold? The new Supreme Court might have a different take on the freedom of political speech as protected in the First Amendment.
I am not a conspiracy nut, but I do wonder what would happen if the liberal camel got its nose under the tent in policing the blogs. In the early nineties, the libs tried to neuter Rush Limbaugh, et. al. by shaking the “fairness doctrine” stick at them. That was stopped, but the stick was not broken and burned. It is just resting in a closet awaiting a President and a Congress that has the political desire to use it against the First Amendment.
La Shawn:
I’m sure Catherine S. Kirkman, Esq., and Dennis Crouch, Esq. will be covering the legal aspects of these issues. They are quoted over at lawseminars.com:
“A growing number of attorneys are being engaged to represent clients with problems arising from blogs. From employment issues to disputes over who owns the content, the legal consequences of blogging are expanding proportionately with the number of blogs—which by one estimate are increasing at a rate of 70,000 per day.”
I’m referring to the “Blog Law & Blogging for Lawyers” set for April 06. I asked the president if an on-line transcript will be made available like the “Blogging Vs. Journalist”, but she said no. It will be for sale only.
Thanks for the tip, Maribel!
I welcome the challenge!
On my blog, I will say what I want to say, support whom I want to support, and try to defeat whomever I want to try to defeat.
Good luck to anyone trying to prove any kind of *financial* transaction, solicitation, or benefit to me or anyone I support through my use of free speech.
I don’t think anyone will ever pay me to blog; I am the epitome of an amateur blogger.
I say, bring it on!
cb, you may say that there’s no “*financial* transaction, solicitation, or benefit to me or anyone I support through my use of free speech.”, but as I understand it, just such a finding was made in Washington state as a result of talk radio. It didn’t affect the talk radio host, I don’t believe, but it required the candidate to list any mention of their candidacy as a donation. That included propositions – campaign supporters who formed groups also had to include mentions as contributions. The other factor was that since it was considered a political action to support a candidate or issue, it would be prohibited for 60 days prior to an election. I can’t say I researched the details, but there is no doubt in my mind that the McCain-Feingold act is one that limits political free speech. It’s a bit fuzzy when you’re talking national politics and campaign donations, but when the same facts get applied to talk radio and blogging, there’s absolutely no doubt about it.
On the other hand, requiring a candidate to disclose all donors and the amount contributed seems to me to let people know where their support comes from. Then you have to make sure that people don’t play games with donation sources…but that shouldn’t be tough – should it?
Obviously we need to beat this thing in the political sphere. And I think McCain-Feingold is a bunch of trash.
…but I was wondering – what about the aspect of web-sites and blogs which is basically “on-demand” rather than all-pervasive mass media? For example, it’s not like LaShawn or Michelle Malkin or any other blogger pops onto television and says “Vote for ____________”. You have to go there consciously. I guess the aspect of subscribing to the feed might be a little bit more like mass media. Anyway wondering if that could be a loophole.
If you’d like to read what Michelle Malkin had to say about Air America, search Google for
Air America site:michellemalkin.com
Here’s a shortcut for the search:
http://urlcut.com/Malkin-AirAmerica
Here is a great article on how opposition to the Patriot Act is a good litmus test for anti-Americanism, and how to win debates with such people.
http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/03/patriot_act_ren.html
Given the way the left-leaning Old Media are losing audience and “mindshare” to the World Wide Web, most particularly the rightish Blogosphere, the wonder of this isn’t that Congressional Democrats are fighting to regulate Internet speech; it’s that they’re not fighting it a outrance, as a matter of life and death for their most important bastions.
Are you against campaign finance laws in principle LaShawn? Should there be any limits to how a candidate gets their financial support, or need to report who they are getting it from?
Should a blogger receiving something of monetary value(paid in one form or another) by a candidate be required to divulge it on their blog, or at least the candidate required to divulge it on theirs?
Just trying to understand where you’re coming from on opposition to McCain-Feingold.
Former Supreme Sandra O’Conner rejected free speech when commenting on Tom De Lay – who said judges could be impeached. How dare he criticize this Leftist feminist who posed as a “conservative”?
Campaign finance laws are a shambles because they are written by power driven incumbents.
The McCain-Feingold “reform” bill neatly carved out a loophole for McCain and any other politician who can milk the Indian tribes. The whole relationship between the US Government and the “sovereign Indian tribes” is a mare’s nest with a long history of graft, corruption, abuse and down right evil.
The following is from The Hill, Feb 14, 2006: “Hans von Spakovsky, installed by President Bush on the Federal Election Commission last month in a controversial recess appointment, has waded into a heated debate by publicly calling for stricter regulations on the political contributions of Indian tribes.”
“In a statement for publication on the FEC’s website, von Spakovsky argues that tribes should have to adhere to the same contribution limits as individuals do…….”
“In his statement, von Spakovsky contends Congress should take one of two courses in regulating Indian tribes’ participation in the political process: either subject tribes to the aggregate contribution limits for “persons†mandated by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) or require tribes to register and disclose political contributions by creating PACs.”
What does this have to do with bloggers? Incumbents writing laws about campaign finance are motivated to protect their cash flow while putting a tying a know in their opponent’s cash cow.
Incumbents do not see free political speech as words, they see it as money that is either going to them or against them.
The dreadful shame in McCain-Feingold is that it brings the cold hand of government enforced censorship of free speech down on the political process in the rough and tumble few weeks before an election.
If bloggers are included in this scheme, nothing will protect them. Overblown as this sounds, a fifteen year old blogger with a political agenda could find himself in the jaws of an FEC investigation with an arsenal that extends all the way to the RICO act.
This is hardball folks. To make a point, John McCain is fighting Hans von Spakovsky tooth and nail. Bush made the interim appointment, because Spakovsky’s nomination would have been defeated by McCain. When it comes to money and politicians, it is a very dirty business.
LaShawn,
I think there is a market for liberal radio, I’m sure there is, but Airhead Amerika Radio certainly does not go about it the right way. They project their view of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaughs program and do what they think RW radio does.
They miss a couple of key things, first they aren’t entertaining, which is why I prefer Limbaugh, he keeps me laughing and informed.
The other, is that the don’t explain their view well enough, it usually sounds like extremism.
This is great news…of course, what’s the definition of a “political blogger.”? I guess that has to be solved, because some bloggers are just random, or they do some politics and something else. Does the blog have to post only political posts? What if the blog used to be a blog about dogs and now it’s political?
As “tolerant†and open-minded as many liberals claim to be, they are afraid of actual free speech.
A liberal, it seems, is someone who will defend to the death your right to agree with them.
Just think of what we have to look forward to if the Democrats win the White House in ‘08! Censorship (a.k.a. “campaign finance reform”), kangaroo courts (”fighting racism and homophobia”), and official media lies (”professional journalism”).
La Shawn, this is a very interesting topic as tied to the ‘Army of Davids’ debate. In reading these two posts, the parallels to the business services industry comes to mind.
To wit, take the 1st and a few other paragraphs of a paper I wrote back in ‘97:
Now substitute MEDIA for “service” and the same argument can be made for bloggers and any outer source of news, commentary & punditry.
As far as Congress ought to be concerned, the free market of ideas is fundamental to our national character. If John McCain and others don’t like it, then either innovate or get out!!!
This is why on a personal level, I will never support him, even if it might mean cHillary might win by my abstaining to vote. My point would be that John is anathematic to the concepts of conservatism/free speech. I’d rather let cHillary ‘thrash’ us, at least we know what she is and she will only be able to go so far.
I also remain confident that the pendulum is swinging back in our favor. So if a liberal were to win in ‘08, it only usher in the swan song of modern politics. The fat lady will sing not only for the Dean Machine, but the GOP as well, because the Republicans have failed to remain true to conservative values that our forefathers envisioned.
La Shawn,
I thought this was a dead issue from last fall….
Mad ‘Still Kickin’ Mikey
I’m shocked. I just read a whiny article on Huffington Post by George Clooney that conservatives are trying to suppress free speech.
Excuse me, I don’t have a blog, why can’t I say what I want after the deadline before an election? What’s magical and special about blogs and newspapers that makes them gain the 1st amendment protections when individual voters do not?
Comments on this entry are closed.