Redstate

So here I am, spending my time with Krempasky.

Harry Reid agrees with Krempasky.

If Mike will post on Daily Kos then I'll be spending some time here. Let's finish the job.

Crossing the streams and all.

yeah?

Personally, I don't understand the exceptionalism for blogs or for the internet.

It's a huge loophole for the future of media.  Really, why?  On what principle?  No one tells me why at dailykos... anyone here?

The internet is not governed by the rules that apply to all other mass media - namely that of scarcity and crowding out.

The whole BCRA is unconstitutional, in my opinion (sadly the Supreme Court did not agree with me). I would love nothing better than to repeal the whole thing, and adopt George Will's proposal to allow any and all contributions, with immediate reporting of all contributions on the internet.

Unfortunately, the odds of repealing the BCRA are slim, due to the strength of the interest groups who gave such a subterranean push for its passage. So I'll settle for restricting its applicability wherever I can.

If you can't win the whole battle, win the part you can, and then continue the fight another day.

Three times in one day - first, on the Jane Fonda spitting incident, second on the Santorum bill to restrict NOAA, and now third, on Reid-Santorum - the folks at RedState are in agreement with the folks over at Daily Kos.  How's that for an alignment of the planets?

Just goes to show that there is reason for hope about the future of America.

what I don't get is supporters of campaign finance regulation think the internet is some reasonable exception to whatever rules are in place.

In my case I support general regulation of all things electoral.

that is exactly my starting point for the question, rather than it's answer, but thanks for making it explicit.

The internet is governed by all the regular rules.

There is "scarcity and crowding out.  There is a finite amount of time spent on the net, so the resource is that attention, the clicks.  There is advertising such that money buys exposure and this creates the same leverage that leads to the problems in the first place of limited bandwidth to communicate and means for dominating that communication.  Oh, there are ways around it, and there were ways around it for print... namely start a new pipe, a new paper, a new website... a new website of a nec. finite number.  

The space increases, but the basic laws of physics regarding communication remain quite exactly the same.

"Regulation of elections" is okay as long as what is meant is setting up rules controlling the mechanics of how everybody votes, and preventing fraud.

"Regulation of elections" is not okay if what is meant is shutting people up. The Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of BCRA/McCain-Feingold  was wrong.  BCRA/McCain-Feingold should be repealed. Until the whole sorry mess can be dismantled, I'll take small victories like the Online Freedom of Information Act.

Meanwhile, let's not lose track of Senator McCain and his current mischief-making in the form of S. 271, the 527 Reform Act of 2005. (The companion House bill is H.R. 513.)

McCain-Feingold delenda est. Pass it on.

the criteria have nothing to do with "being on the internet", but have to do with other criteria that apply in general, like the commercial nature of the enterprise.

Some kinds of regulation are just oversight... official blessing... a personal website is not free from scrutiny, and if it puts a Bush or Kerry web link in it's blogroll which it does not charge for, then there should be no problem.

If it gives free ads that it generally charges for, then that's another matter, and in no case would "being a blog" or "being on the internet" be the criteria.

In general, non-commericial speech, imo, should be unfettered.  Commercial speech should get a minimal amount of regulation, and all donations, in kind or otherwise should be totally public, disclosed in a central location.

The name of this legislation should have sent red flags up to EVERYONE.

"Online Freedom of Speech"?  AS IF ...

You know the Constitution is under assault when some congressman or senator comes up with a stupid idea like this.  If these people were serious about guaranteeing free speech rights, they would repeal McCain-Feingold outright.

More on what I think here.

This is just another way our elected officials dictate what rights we will and will not have.  Never mind what the Constitution says.

RWR

If non-commercial speech should be unfettered, then why do you support regulating free ads? It's one thing to regulate money- I don't agree with it, but it's a view. But you support regulating speech even when no money changes hands.

The game, as I understand it, is to convert speech to money and claim to only be regulating the money. That this can be done even when no money is involved suggests that the real goal is to regulate speech.

Is speech favoring or opposing a candidate an in kind contribution that would have to be disclosed in a central location? Where would I have to register in order to be allowed to say what I want?

is a matter of determining what is freely given.  If someone runs a commercial site, and both sells ads and gives free advertisement in the form of a permanent blogroll link, I think there is a distinction there.

If you give free ads that you normally charge for, then that is a contribution, and what should it be valued.  The going rate seems fair.

If you are going to regulate spending then in kind spending counts.  You sound against any regulation at all.

I would support that position if it were possible.  But if there were absolutely no regulation of elections then there would be no elections, it's not as though they are naturally occuring events, they must be organized with vollition.  So it is only a matter of how much regulation should be employed in elections.

try the post office!

personally I could imagine elections with NO restriction of spending at all... but for that to be fair, other justices would have to be realized simultaneously, and in the current reality, handed us by history, regulation of elections is required for the stability of the system.