FEC v Free Speech
Mar 3rd, 2005 by cadmus
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Un. Frikkin. Believable. Thank you McCain-Feingold. No, seriously, free speech is way overrated.
First, here’s the intro to the interview:
Bradley Smith says that the freewheeling days of political blogging and online punditry are over.
In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the federal government if they improperly link to a campaign’s Web site.
(You know, during the campaign I had links to the Repbulican and Democratic parties, Howard Dean, and Kerry-Edwards in addition to Bush-Cheney. Oh the irony if I were fined for linking to both sides. Sigh.)
Even forwarding a political candidate’s press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.Smith should know. He’s one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.
In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. “The commission’s exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines” the campaign finance law’s purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn’t get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a “bizarre” regulatory process now is under way.
CNET News.com spoke with Smith about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold law, and its forthcoming extrusion onto the Internet.
Go read the rest of the interview: The coming crackdown on blogging | Newsmakers | CNET News.com
Update: ARRRGGH!!! This is from page 2 of the interview:
Senators McCain and Feingold have argued that we have to regulate the Internet, that we have to regulate e-mail. They sued us in court over this and they won.
This could affect the entire political spectrum. It’s not about parties, it’s the First Amendment. Armando at Daily Kos, the website that raised $500,000 for 15 different Democratic candidates across the country during Campaign 2004, weighs in: Daily Kos- FEC Attack on Internet-Based Political Advocacy?
This development merits monitoring and, dare I say it, lobbying, if necessary. And yes, lawsuits in the ultimate case. This is very much a threat to what we think we are doing here at dailykos, and what others, both on the Left and the Right are doing.
And yes, this is definitely a First Amendment issue.
And MyDD has this post: MyDD :: These judges, commissioners, and advocacy groups are not Republican
If they had their way, DeanForAmerica’s decentralized netroots campaign would have never happened, and will certainly not happen again for another candidate. I swear to the gods, how idiotic can people be? If the 3 Democratic-appointed judges on the FEC panel manage to extend the 2002 campaign finance law to regulate political speech over the internet, we Democrats can say hello to the wilderness for sure. Now, I’ve asked Harry Reid upfront if the Senate backs this crap, and he flat out said no, no, no,
[...]
Dammit, how can this be? The Republicans are on the right side of this issue. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, in citing Smith, is the ignorant tool of clueless advocacy groups in DC. Even Smith himself now recognizes the folly here.
More coverage:
Captain’s Quarters- McCain-Feingold May Shut Down CQ
Michelle has a dozen more links in her post. A roundup from other bloggers, the voting record on the bill itself in ‘01 and FEC info.
Michelle Malkin: THE FEC VS. BLOGS
Carol Plat Liebau has a good point in her post: Carol Platt Liebau
Is this America? Apparently, the government can’t do much to regulate internet porn — the Supreme Court has already struck down the Child Online Protection Act. But it sounds like the government may well be given the power to monitor bloggers engaged in what should be the most sacred province of the Constitution’s free speech guarantee — the right to engage in political speech.
GOP Bloggers: Dark Days for Political Blogging?
Indepundit has a good point also, considering Technorati reports over 7.5 million blogs watched:
“Seems like an impossible task, to me.”
Citizen Smash – The Indepundit: Regulating Blogs?
Instapundit has links:
Instapundit.com – The coming crackdown on blogs
Professor Bainbridge has a great post and he makes reference to the first amendment also: ProfessorBainbridge.com: Thank You Senators McCain and Feingold … you [plural expletive deleted]
Paul at Wizbang! predicts “The Mother of all Blogswarms”
Wizbang: Banning Political Blogs?
