Redstate

If you can't get (and keep) this group interested in taking action to preserve free speech online, then we've already lost.

I think I'll diarate on the philosophy of the issue.  You guys have spent some time on the mechanics, but the driving principles are kind of vague to me, and it always helps me understand if I write about things like that.

But if Bush came out in favor of this, more than half the people here would suddenly think it was a great idea, and Rush Limbaugh and President Bush would call all who disagree idiots and racists.

That makes one of you .. I am EXTREMELY tired of hearing about this .. I haven't checked this site since yesterday and I see nothing has changed ..

I'm checking out of REDSTATE ..

Michael

Bush would call all who disagree idiots and racists.

Please tell me the last time President Bush called somebody a "racist" and an "idiot".

...on the Internet now, than there are people that have ever lived on the Earth. The FEC should concern itself instead, with those increasingly rare cases where there's monopolization of speech, or the all too common cases of criminal obscenity.

For conservative sites like RedState, that have been beating this drum on campaign finance for years, thank you for fighting this fight.  You are in the right.

But I have to admit that I get serious pleasure when I see people like Kos and Matt Stoller wringing their hands, shouting "It wasn't supposed to be this way!  You were supposed to just go after bad nasty corporations!"

Correct me if I'm wrong here, please, but this is what I understand the issue to be:

Unless the FEC is barred from doing so by the Congress, they may interpret the BCRA to make it a federal offense to give more than $2000 worth of space on your personal or group webpage promoting a candidate for a federal election, because it would count as an in-kind donation.

How the worth is to be determined, I don't know; maybe they'll base it on ad rates for sites that have ads.

Also, even if you stayed below that value, you could be required to file reports for your 'donations.'

And corporate-run webpages, like Daily Kos which incorporated simply to make it easier to run such a large site, could be in big trouble given the bars on coporate giving.

I meant to go on:

So unless you think it's compatible with the First Amendment to restrict so severely private individuals from expressing their own views of candidates standing for elections, this regulatory issue is a threat to free speech.

In the phrase

more than half the people here would suddenly think it was a great idea, and Rush Limbaugh and President Bush would call all who disagree idiots and racists

replace the part that reads

more than half the people here would suddenly think it was a great idea, and Rush Limbaugh and President Bush would call

with

more than half the people here would call

and

all who disagree idiots and racists

with

Bob Frazier an idiot. Much better, yes? Although I concede that the conditional isn't needed to make the sentence as modified true at any rate.

I'll tell you what I am tired of.  When I call my congresscritter's office, that sweet little staffer who answers the phone absolutely blows me off.  There is absolutely no question in my mind that not only does she not pass on my message, she doesn't give a flying rat's @$$ if I like it or not.

When I called about 1606, she refused to tell me what Mr. Congresscritter thought about it and acted like she had never even heard of it.  (What's it about?  What did you say that number was again?  OK, thanks.  Click.)

Stupid lousy tart.  If he had a primary challenger, I'd make it two votes closer.

What?

Call and beat their staff around the ears, but that's a bad idea for a number of reasons.

One of the reasons is...Blunt v. Shadegg v. Boehner.  Exacerbated by the fact that you are no longer Macho Nacho.

Maybe if you just called and said that you were MN and wanted to talk to them, they wouldn't make the connection.

:)

If you write for the online version of the Nation or the Weekly Standard, you are a "journalist," and don't have to register with the FEC.  If you write for a blog, you're not a journalist - you're a political operative - and you must register.

It's deeply creepy and it's a direct threat to free speech.  One can debate the first amendment implications of whether or not contributing money to a candidate or cause constitutes free speech.  The idea that an individual could fly afoul of campaign finance laws merely by advocating for a candidate on their blog is a whole nother ball game.  Written political advocacy is the quintissential free speech -- it is exactly what the founders had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.