FEC first draft: Blogosphere roundup
By Mark Kilmer Posted in FEC — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Reaction to the first draft of the FEC report and Mike Krempasky's analysis posted below:
Armando at dKos comments that "Mike Krempasky of Red State has gotten a hold of the draft rules and is alarmed... [but] unless the soft money ban is significant (I defer to markos on that), nothing described sounds too onerous."
Mark Tapscott observes that "Krempasky has proof of why it is very difficult to continue believing that Weintraub and the rest of the would-be speech police at the commission are being completely honest about their intentions with this rule-making process."
PoliPundit writes that the "draft is truly draconian, and confirms our worst fears." He posts a selection of his readers' messages to the FEC.
Hugh Hewitt read the draft obtained by RedState and acknowledges that he "underestimated the problem at the FEC, and reiterate my advice on participating in the rule-making. But given the courts' collective actions these past few days, lets hope they maintain a higher regard for the First Amendment than they did Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment."
[NEXT PAGE FOR MORE]
UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin quotes liberally from Mike Krempasky to suggest that Brad Smith might have been vindicated.
Kevin Aylward says that the "blogosphere [sic] owes Commissioner Smith a serious debt of gratitude!"
Patterico remains undimmed: " Regardless of whether the FEC promulgates rules for political speech on the Internet, I plan to express my opinions just as I did before. If I need to link to a politician’s campaign web site in order to make my point, I’m going to do so. If I decide to endorse a candidate, I will. If I think my readers should send that candidate money, I will encourage them to do so."
La Shawn Barber wants her readers "to see the problems arising out of any regulation of the blogosphere." She has a great series of links embedded in her post.
James Joyner writes that a personal website, uncoordinated with any candidate's campaign, could be considered a political contribution simply because of opinions expressed on it, is as frightening as it is absurd."
Professor Bainbridge cites Rick Hasen as thinking that the FEC isn't quite tough enough. He concludes that FEC needs to address Hasen's points, "preferably with some appreciation for the free speech rights of bloggers."
Joshua Clayborn suggests that "the whole charade demonstrates the extent to which McCain-Feingold legislation permits the FEC to go. Even if their rules this round aren't all that burdensome, the potential remains. Freedom-loving citizens have cause for alarm, and now is the time to protest."
Captain Ed writes: "On the other hand, the FEC proposes such loose language here that they could enforce it on any third-party blog with more than 500 readers -- and note that the reader limit doesn't refer to any specific time frame. This could mean 500 a day, a week, a month, or throughout an entire political campaign."
John Coleman sees "what can truly be referred to as a conspiracy and most mainstream media outlets—our guardians of free speech—have remained silent. Campaign finance reform in its current form may be the biggest threat to real free speech in the country, but almost no one treats it that way (I sure don’t)." He praises Brad Smith and suggests that if the enemies of free speech were to remove him from the FEC, "we would start the biggest public campaign in history to get Brad Smith nominated to the Supreme Court."
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | New FEC document released: what do they really think? — Comments (23) »
FEC first draft: Blogosphere roundup 3 Comments (0 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
it would be hysterical if only it weren't so freakin' dead on.
More Equal
The Socialist Workers Party National Campaign Committee and committees supporting candidates of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) remain exempt from some FEC disclosure requirements for political committees. See advisory opinion AO 2003-2: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2003/may03.pdf
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that, under certain circumstances, the Act's disclosure requirements as applied to a minor party would be unconstitutional because the threat to their First Amendment rights resulting from disclosure would outweigh the interest in disclosure. According to the Court's opinion, "minor parties must be allowed sufficient flexibility in the proof of injury to assure a fair consideration of their claim [for a reporting exemption] . . . The evidence offered need only show a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of a party's contributors' names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either the government or private parties." 424 U.S. at 74.
Socialists defend right to campaign in elections - excerpt from The Militant,Vol. 67/No. 6, February 17, 2003
BY PAUL PEDERSON (http://ww.themilitant.com/2003/6706/670650.html)
The SWP won the exemption on the basis of the threat to First Amendment rights to free association posed by the disclosure of campaign contributors' names. The party's recent request for extension of this protection cites 74 examples of harassment and threats--all since the previous extension was granted in 1996--directed at supporters of the Socialist Workers Party by right-wing individuals and groups, employers, and city, state, and federal police. It includes corroborating newspaper clippings, police reports, citations, and individual declarations.
The examples of harassment include 28 cases of police interference with election campaign activities, such as stopping campaign supporters from distributing literature, threatening to arrest campaign workers, photographing participants in an antiwar demonstration, issuing citations, and in many cases expressing hostility to the views of the socialists and their right to present them publicly.
Dozens of other examples are cited of threats and disruption, such as office break-ins and vandalism, threats by bosses, death threats and physical assaults such as the overturning of campaign tables by right-wing or racist individuals.
End of excerpt
It is often useful to examine exceptions to rules when attempting to understand their necessity. The following thoughts come to mind when contemplating this exemption:
Is this a great country or what? We bend over backwards to accommodate those who would destroy our way of life." If you want to overthrow the government of the United States and replace it with a Communist Dictatorship you are exempt from Federal Election Commission regulations that require the disclosure of personal information.
Less Equal
But, if you want to exercise first Amendment rights, by coordinating with others to effectively communicate your ideas, promote candidates of your choice and petition the government for lawful change you must disclose your full name, mailing address, occupation and the name of your employer.
Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), political committees are required to file reports with the FEC disclosing their receipts and disbursements, including the identification of individuals and other persons who have made contributions aggregating $200 or more during a calendar year. 2 U.S.C. §434(b)(3), (5) and (6). According to FEC regulations, identification, in the case of an individual, includes his or her full name, mailing address, occupation and the name of his or her employer. Under the Act, the treasurer of a political committee is required to put forth his or her best efforts to obtain this information.
This Vietnam Veteran fought the communist and paid the price for full disclosure:
Non-adjacent paragraphs excerpted from:
"Live" with TAE - http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18461/article_detail.asp
John O'Neill
One of the most dramatic stories of Election 2004 was the coalescence of a large group of Vietnam veterans dedicated to the idea that John Kerry was not fit to become America's Commander in Chief. Many of those who joined Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had served with Kerry in Vietnam. And his behavior there--and, even more, upon his return--convinced them that Kerry could not be trusted to lead our nation in wartime.
The very first ad we filed began with a man named Al French, a very highly decorated Vietnam veteran, who served as a prosecutor in Clackamas County, Oregon. Immediately, 23 different complaints were filed with the state bar of Oregon against Mr. French. In addition, he was fired from his job in Oregon as an assistant prosecutor supposedly on the basis of a ten-year-old complaint that had never been processed by his boss before that time.
End of excerpt
Balance the above with this scenario:
Excerpt from:
Should Socialist Parties and Candidates Be Exempt from FEC Reporting? - (http://www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2003/000023.html)
By Brian Carnell - Monday, July 21, 2003
Why should minor party donors, be exempt from this so long as every other donor is required by law to have this information disclosed? Imagine, for example, that the CEO of BASF decided that he wanted to donate a large amount of money to the campaign of some minor party whose basic platform was white supremacist in nature. Why should that party be able to obtain an exemption and hide such donation's from public view simply because the ideas of the white supremacist party are unpopular (and would certainly subject the donor to likely harassment) -- while at the same time all of the donations to major parties would be revealed in a nice table layout on a web page?
End of Excerpt
Anonymous political speech goes back to the very beginning of our country with the publishing of the Federalist Papers. King George wanted every American press to have a unique number carved in its platen so every printed page could be traced back to the source. America rebelled. Could the rebellion succeed today?
Irregardless, the law should apply equally and to all. The SWP exemption, granted by the FEC, is contrary to 5th Amendment due process and State Election Boards that permit similar exemptions run afoul of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
compiled by Ben DoubleCrossed
I have something of a parody disclaimer at my blog, here. I'll post the majority of it in this comment:
-----------------
End User License Agreement: I, a visitor of this website (hereby known as "blog") acknowledge that this blog, in compliance with FEC regulations, is not (a) open to the public, and (b) does not support any candidate and/or his/her affiliated party, political belief(s), religion, or ideology. Further, I acknowledge that this blog has received no support, financial or otherwise, from any politician, political candidate and/or his campaign, Political Action Committee, Non-Governmental Organization, 501(C)3, political party, or any other form of organization required to report to the Federal Election Commission.
I further acknowledge that I am not a member of the general public and that this blog is not a form of communication, and thus said blog is not subject to the limitations on "public communication" (Thick Stack Of Papers That Ellen Weintraub Spilled Breakfast And Coffee On, page 27, just below the maple syrup stain). Anyone whom I email any document, post, image, or thought originating from this blog is not legally a person, and thus is not counted in FEC regulations which limit transmission of the same, or substantively similar, document(s) to 500 or more individuals within a 30-day period (Papers Used By Ellen Weintraub To Clean The Aforementioned Spill Of Coffee And Breakfast, page 9, two lines under the Scotch Tape that repaired said document). Futhermore, I acknowledge that I am neither a person nor an individual and thus excluded from the allotted 500 individuals who can view this website, which I provided a password to enter because this website is not open to the public even though I have no clear memory of providing said password, over a 30-day period.
...
I further acknowledge that this blog did not in any way influence or modify my views regarding any politician and/or his campaign, political party, nor did it influence or modify my political belief, religion, ideology, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marriage status, mental and/or physical problems. This blog did not encourage or discourage me from donating any amount of money to any cause or modify any such donation.
This blog did not and never will make me fat, and I will not hold it responsible for the extra airplane ticket that I may or may not have purchased to accommodate my weightyness.
DISCLAIMER:This blog uses 100% recycled electrons. No animals were harmed in the making of this blog.
-----------------
I hope you found that as funny as I intended it to be.