Redstate

By krempasky Posted in FEC — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Markos and I have sent a letter to every Member of the House this morning - urging them to pass HR 1606 as soon as possible. While there is a promising proposal from the Center for Democracy & Technology floating about - it's imperative that Congress send a clear message that ought to be protected. Full text below the fold - and .pdf version behind the thumbnail.

March 9, 2005

Dear Member of Congress,

Exactly four months ago, we
joined across the aisle to urge your support for H.R. 1606, the Online
Freedom of Speech Act, and to oppose a hastily-drafted alternative.

We write to you again today,
from the right and the left, to urge you to support free speech online
by passing H.R. 1606 next week. While there are interesting
proposals being offered to provide a comprehensive “fix” for Internet
regulation, Congress needs to pass the Online Freedom of Speech Act
now and consider long-term answers later.

H.R. 1606 would preserve the
status quo which governed the 2004 election cycle and beyond, one in
which a vibrant blogosphere empowered millions of citizens to influence
national politics, leveling the effect of wealth on the electoral process,
and without any of the corruption which its opponents now fear.
Its passage would send a strong message to the Federal Election Commission
to tread lightly when it comes to the Internet, telling it that Congress
does not wish to stifle online citizen participation in the political
process.

Published reports indicate
that, as of February 2006, there are over 14 million weblogs, with approximately
75,000 new blogs are created every day, about one every second.
The blogosphere is over 60 times bigger than it was only 3 years
ago. With the blogosphere continuing to double in size about every
five-and-a-half months, it
is simply not possible for any person or entity, no matter how wealthy
they may be or how much money they can spend, to dominate or corrupt
online political discourse.

H.R. 1606 does not create
any “loopholes”. As FEC Chairman Michael Toner (R) has
stated, the charge that H.R. 1606 would somehow allow federal candidates
to coordinate with corporations and unions to spend soft money funds
to purchase Internet banner and video ads on behalf of candidates “has
no legal foundation.” Former Democratic commissioner Karl Sandstrom
concurred in his recent testimony before Congress:

You know, I have heard some
nonsense here today. But nonsense sometimes dressed up in legal analysis
is no more than a clown in a bow tie. For example, I have heard that
somehow there was a complete exemption for the Internet put into the
Commission’s regulations. In many ways I am for a broader
exemption, but that was never the case. For example, a labor union could
not pay for a candidate’s Internet ads. That is not permissible under
the current law. It is not permissible because 441(b) prohibits it.

All there was was an exemption
from the definition of public communication. Yard signs are exempt from
public communication. But not a single member on this committee would
ever go to a corporation in their district and say purchase yard signs
for me because they are not a public communication, and you can use
your corporate money for that purpose.

That just is not the case.
That is not the law. And no amount of obfuscation can make it the law.
441(b) is a ban on using corporate and union funds in connection with
an election, the purchase of ad space
that is expressly advocates election or defeat if a candidate clearly
falls within that prohibition.

The FEC needs Congress’
guidance on these matters.
President Bush recently replaced half its commissioners via recess appointment,
and the new Commissioners – however well-meaning – have not had
the benefit of the months of study and live testimony conducted during
2005. To require them to swiftly promulgate regulations in this
field, as a district court has ordered them to do, runs the severe risk
of creating haphazard and misguided decrees which could chill citizen
participation. Moreover, such regulations could be disingenuously
employed by partisans on either side to club their political adversaries,
attacking their opponents and chilling their behavior via the FEC complaint
process, rather than what the Internet currently encourages: active
debate. The FEC has announced that if Congress does not act, they
will vote on regulations on March 16. This is why Congress
needs to act now.

We are encouraged by the
proposal from the Center for Democracy & Technology, but we cannot
advocate its passage now.
It is a solution in search of a problem which has yet to manifest, and
therefore requires full study and consideration in Committee.
It is not an alternative to H.R. 1606. Do not let H.R. 1606’s
opponents paint this as an either-or situation:

Congress should pass H.R. 1606 now to continue the temporary exemption,
and then fully consider the CDT’s and other proposals. We continue
to advocate a cautious approach which steers clear of additional regulations
until real corruption becomes evident. At that point, Congress and the
Federal Election Commission will still exist, and can prevent actual
problems and not merely hypothetical ones.

The House Administration Committee
has studied H.R. 1606 and held hearings, whose transcripts are available
on its website: http://cha.house.gov. The hearings made clear that
H.R. 1606 is supported by Democratic and Republican FEC commissioners,
by campaign finance law experts, and by the bloggers who would be subject
to it.

H.R. 1606 is ready to pass.
Last year’s vote indicated it already has majority support, and now
has the support of both Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid
in the Senate. Please support H.R. 1606 now.

Sincerely,

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
Michael
Krempasky