No threat to bloggers, you say?
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I need to ask the RedState legal community for help on this one. Just a few days ago, Erick posted a letter from Trevor Potter (an election lawyer and supporter of McCain-Feingold) in which he tried to stem the tide of outrage over Bradley Smith's recent comments to CNET. He said, in part:
There is NO REASON AT ALL that this FEC rulemaking should attempt to regulate bloggers, Internet -based news entities, or average citizens sitting at their PCs, and I have great faith it will not.
Ok, fine. But now (thanks to MyDD) I read what Trevor wrote in The New Campaign Finance Sourcebook (updated last month) (link)
Political Web Sites Maintained By IndividualsAn individual may participate in political activities over the Internet in countless ways but must be wary of the requirements and pitfalls associated with such activity. Thus, an individual may spend an unlimited amount of money creating a web site that discusses issues, legislation, and policy--and basically anything else provided it does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate--without subjecting herself to regulation by any federal election laws. She may instead spend an unlimited amount of money creating a web site expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, provided she does not coordinate with a federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee. In this case, however, the costs of creating and maintaining the web site are considered "expenditures," which trigger reporting requirements to the FEC if they exceed $250. Finally, she may create a web site expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate in coordination with a federal campaign committee. Because she coordinated with a campaign, the costs are considered "in-kind contributions" and are counted against her annual contribution limit of $2,100 per candidate per election. (emphasis mine)
Ok, well - which is it? And keep in mind - reporting means exposure to fines. Limits means exposure to penalties. Coordination, apparently means just about anything - even in the absence of any agreement. If a blogger gets in on a conference call or web chat with a campaign and posts his notes and encourages his readers to donate and vote for said candidate - is that an in-kind contribution or not? As far as costs associated with maintaining a website - looks like if you spend more than $20 a month in hosting - you've hit the $250 mark.
I just don't see a way that the FEC can regulate paid activity on the internet without necessarily applying the same standards to unpaid in-kind activity.
« Financing the General Election — Comments (6) | Bradley Smith on NRA News at 4:30EST — Comments (0) »
No threat to bloggers, you say? 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
under the new regime of speech regulation, ineffectual methods of discourse may be permitted, while those that might possibly be effective in mobilizing opinion must be stringently regulated.
But this isn't my field, so I defer to experts.
Whichever political party makes a public stand against this first is going to score some political points with internet users.
By the FEC's logic, if I link to the Red Cross, I should be able to claim a tax deduction.
Krempasky you are right on the money - they are coming for the bloggers, they are going to do it big time, and they are going to do it with the one weapon in their arsenal against which we have no defense: the judiciary.
McCain/Feingold was bad law when it was made, its getting worse, and we have no one but ourselves to blame as "our guy" signed it into law - probably hoping to pass the buck to the supreme court to do the right thing. (As if ... how many times has that happened in the last 40 years).
Now we've got a huge fight that we have to engage in with uncertain prospects of victory. If we loose this fight then it will only be a matter of time before all speech is subject to regulation. As our Canadian friends have shown us, once government decides that it has the right to determine what speech is proper and what speech is not, it will regulate all speech from the newspapers to the pulpit.
If this issue ends up being decided in the courts alone, the same courts that have decided from the top down that pornography is more protected speech than politics and has been using the constitution as toilet paper for the last 60+ years, then we are pretty much doomed.
until my fingers are useless stumps, that what may indeed be necessary as a measure against the slow-motion judicial crisis of the Republic, that never-ending Constitutional Convention, is a bit of salutary defiance of judicial ukases. Tell them that their egregious rulings are void, that executive officeholders will not uphold them, and challenge them to enforce the rulings themselves.
I am afraid, given the current disarray of our jurisprudence, that were the First Amendment to be ratified today, it would contain little concerning its true intent, the protection of political speech and religious practice, but would probably contain language to the effect that no law shall be enacted restricting the rights of the people to do whatever they wish sexually.
My blog costs me nothing personally to operate. However the very generous person who operates the server is not a U.S. citizen. Would that make the money he spends on hosting, bandwidth etc. an illegal contribution from a foreign national?
...other than to declare Potter a shameless liar.
Harsh words, indeed, but how on earth can what he wrote in the NCFS be reconciled with his recent letter?
I know Erick is apparently an acquaintance of Potter's, which is why I feel wary of using such strong rhetoric...but is he not incontrovertibly speaking out of both sides of his mouth here?
I am curious on how the FEC will percieve blogs that do not nessacerily endorse a canadate, but rather a blog that keeps "tabs" on thier political activity and holds thier feet to the flame?
Being from the great state of Arizona, (obviously everyones favorite, right?), I know McCain will never be toppled; however, the congressman from my district, Kolbe, pretty much ignores his constituency and does what the dickens he likes, accountable to no one. I have been thinking of starting a blog following his every move, shining a light into every nook and crany he hides.
How, if it all, would the FEC rules apply, esspecially if the blog were used by someone else to topple him?
Krempasky, you appear to be right, and that should concern everyone.
Let's get this straight, based on what you've quoted:
(1) If I go door to door in my neighborhood and say "Vote Bush" I have volunteered my time and energy -- it is not reportable.
(2) If I put on my website a link to BC04 or write stories about why you should vote for Bush, I just might have commited a reportable event.
(3) If I have a website and call it "Blogs for Bush" I just might have committed a reportable event and would subject myself to fines by the FEC if I did not commit some sort of disclosure AND if I dared to speak with anyone at BC04 I just might be accused of coordination, whether it existed or not.
What this boils down to is the government telling me how I can speak. I can stand on the street corner and hold up a BC04 sign and that is fine. But, I just might not be able to start a website that displays a BC04 sign.
I, for one, don't see the difference between the two.