In which I disagree with Adam Bonin
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
My good friend Adam Bonin brings word of a *new* bill introduced in the House of Representatives which purports to protect online speech and political activity.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Brad Miller, does two things: 1) codifies in law the principle that internet publications also enjoy the press exemption from campaign finance laws and 2) creates a new exemption for online organizing.
Let me say - I've got no beef with the first provision, and if the bill stopped there I'd have lots of nice things to say about the effort. Unfortunately, the second provision pretty much ensures it's dead on arrival in the House - because it complicates and muddies the issue.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF ORGANIZATION OF ONLINE MEETINGS AS VOLUNTEER SERVICE EXEMPT FROM TREATMENT AS CONTRIBUTION.
Section 301(8)(B)(i) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(8)(B)(i)) is amended . . . .
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
"(xv) the value of services provided through the Internet in organizing and coordinating meetings of individuals to discuss a candidate or political committee, or to volunteer on behalf of a candidate or political committee, whether the person organizing and coordinating such meetings or discussions acts with or without compensation.
While Adam appreciates what he calls the simple elegance of the bill - I have to disagree. (note: folks, I'm for freedom so don't take this as statement of my personal principles) This is neither simple nor elegant. "Value of services provided through the Internet" is a big, broad definition. If your goal (not mine, mind you) is to close some sort of soft money loophole, this sure doesn't do it. Tell me why you couldn't build your own MeetUp.com or a version of VoterVault (RNC) or Demzilla (DNC) and offload all your database expenses? Or email prospecting? Or advertising for people to attend a meeting? It might not include *all* GOTV efforts, but it sure seems to include a lot of them.
At the same time - "volunteer on behalf of a candidate or political committee" allows for expressly partisan activity.
I can understand the desire to protect activity which is considered virtous by most (giving people the chance to organize at the grassroots level) - but campaign finance has a LOT of moving parts, and this bill is sloppy - it'll only end up in court. It distracts from the real issue - that *underregulation* is better than *overregulation* if only in pursuit of blessed simplicity. On top of that - the "reformers" will go completely ape and throw themselves in front of this bus.
It's why I support HR 1606, the Online Freedom of Speech Act. If Miller can nix the second half of his bill, then we can talk about supporting it.
I have felt all along that the simpler solution, and the only one consistant with the First Amendment, is to allow any expense from any American citizen, American Union, or American Corporation.
Citizens can donate to campaigns or interest groups who directly spend the money.
Unions and corporations can only spend directly (I would allow for umbrella groups, with limits as to how many "umbrellas" a group could be under and spending money politically, as long as the membership is open and the money source is declared).
No political action committees donating to candidates. If you want to donate to a candidate, donate yourself.
As I said, citizens donating to an interest group who advertises, such as single issue groups, is OK - just declare it before it is spent.
No PACs donating to other PACs.
All donations must be declared before those funds can be spent. If there seems to be a problem, make the declaration 24 hrs before spending. <BG>
That is the key requirement. We must ban the cover behind the front behind the other front. Open books are our friends.
Make it clear and visible who is paying for the adverts in question.
The manner in which the non-profits are played probably mean that they would be required to disclose the source of the campaign funding, and the ease at which "for profit" versions of previous "non-profit" corporations would get around that and still spend the same amount would mean that some mechanism to restrict that would be mandatory in any possibly workable plan. Probably publicly held corps wouldn't have to declare sources (it is safe to presume that GM would spend money that otherwise could have gone to stockholders) but all categories of close held corporations would have to so declare sources.
Flame away