Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Cracks to fall through at the FEC
By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Remember - the draft FEC regs governing the internet provide, in essence, two safe harbors for bloggers - the "volunteer exemption" and the "media exemption." Are these sufficient to soothe the concerns of bloggers? Hardly - and here's why: there are far, far, too many instances and examples of what bloggers do that are just not contemplated nor protected by these constructs. The devil is all over the details. Action items: Use the DownsizeDC system to tell Congress to pass HR1606 and S678 and at the same time exercise your duty as a citizen to submit your comments to the FEC at internet@fec.gov.
- 1) The incorporated blogger is automatically excluded from the volunteer exemption, leaving only the media avenue. So, protect yourself from liability or incorporate to deal with meager revenue - half your protection is gone.
- 2) The volunteer exemption is written to address an "unpaid individual" helping a campaign. If you're a group of individuals, say a few college students, you need more protection. What if one participant in a collaborative blog violates the regulations - is the entire blog now a "political committee"?
- 3) The volunteer exemption allows the aforementioned volunteer to spend a "nominal" sum in support of a candidate. (in the off-line world, think of paying for your own gas to drive around to literature drops) When pressed, even the FEC chairman wasn't able to answer the simple question - what is a nominal sum? A $20/month blog, remember, can result in an aggregate expenditure of far more than $250 in an election cycle.
- 4) The media exemption will only be awarded on a case-by-case basis. Take a moment and think about that - and remember when it comes to those sorts of decisions - who will be largely responsibile for them? The professional staff at the FEC - and we know what they think about freedom. (hint: not much)
- 5) When it comes to the media exemption, the FEC has historically approached the question with skepticism, specifically when the situation involves a so-called "special edition" of a publication - when a media outlet substantively changes its form or format to address politics, the FEC has penalized such practice.
- 6) Prohibited source contributions - much of the talk about blogs revolves around the notion that a blog post or link simply doesn't increase marginal costs, so the contributions are negligible. But here's the major problem: when the FEC determines that a contribution - no matter how small - comes from a "prohibited source" - then the size of the contribution is not based on what it cost to make the contribution but on how much the campaign was 'enriched'. So put up a fundraising post and drive donations to a campaign and you can be looking at a monstrous illegal contribution. (sidenote: FEC penalties and fines are calculated in relation to the size of the illegal contribution or expenditure)
Unfortunately, these aren't all the problems with the proposed regulations - but they should tide you over for a few days until my next batch.
When a newspaper decides to publish a letter from an individual in support of or in opposition to the election of a candidate, a corporation grants the lucky individual temporary exemption from state or federal election laws through its corporate press exemption.
But where do State Constitution(s) or the United States Constitution grant private business the authority to choose who will and who will not be exempt from state or federal election laws? By what lawful authority does any private corporation presume to restrict, exempt or determine the 1st Amendment Rights of any living Citizen? Was the Bill of Rights written to guarantee the rights of individuals or corporations?
Aren't all American citizens entitled to 'equal' protection of the law? The Press Exemption unlawfully creates regulated and unregulated communities and thereby crowns a 'royal', 'corporate' press.
The mission statement of election reforms is to reduce the influence of big money and special interests. Corporations are forbidden to donate to political campaigns. But only the corporate press, dependent on special interest advertising dollars, is exempt from the reforms.
The Supreme Court has somehow determined that money does not equal free speech. Then let's tell the newspapers they cannot purchase barrels of ink.
Federal Campaign Reforms are cancer of the 1st Amendment!