1
   

FEC may crack down on bloggers

 
 
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 09:36 am
Quote:
Wednesday, March 16 2005  

Agency may impose speech restrictions on Internet political activity


WASHINGTON - The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is considering extending political speech restrictions found in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to those who engage in political speech on the Internet. 

While the FEC had previously voted to exempt the Internet from the McCain-Feingold speech regulations, an activist judge overruled the Commission last fall.  Because of the Democrats on the Commission, the FEC does not have the votes necessary to appeal the judge's decision. 

Forwarding a political candidate's press releases via e-mail, or possibly even linking to a campaign website in an e-mail or blog could soon be considered campaign advertising, and subject to the regulation of political speech found in the McCain-Feingold law. 

"This is exactly what the opponents of McCain-Feingold feared," said Tom Readmond, executive director of the Media Freedom Project.  "Blogs have been hailed as the democratization of politics, allowing individual citizens a louder voice than they've ever had before.  It therefore stands to reason that the bureaucrats in Washington want to get busy regulating this kind of political speech." 

"Congress needs to step in and clarify this issue," continued Readmond.  "Members of Congress need to hear from their constituents that they won't stand for this kind of speech regulation.  Speak now, while you still can."


So much for freedom of speech.

Link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 656 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 05:14 pm
just absolutely typically disgusting.

The one place I feel I can get my news now the government is going to start getting their hands on that too. And they claim to be for small government.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 05:31 pm
Re: FEC may crack down on bloggers
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Quote:
Wednesday, March 16 2005  

Agency may impose speech restrictions on Internet political activity


WASHINGTON - The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is considering extending political speech restrictions found in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to those who engage in political speech on the Internet. 

While the FEC had previously voted to exempt the Internet from the McCain-Feingold speech regulations, an activist judge overruled the Commission last fall.  Because of the Democrats on the Commission, the FEC does not have the votes necessary to appeal the judge's decision. 

Forwarding a political candidate's press releases via e-mail, or possibly even linking to a campaign website in an e-mail or blog could soon be considered campaign advertising, and subject to the regulation of political speech found in the McCain-Feingold law. 

"This is exactly what the opponents of McCain-Feingold feared," said Tom Readmond, executive director of the Media Freedom Project.  "Blogs have been hailed as the democratization of politics, allowing individual citizens a louder voice than they've ever had before.  It therefore stands to reason that the bureaucrats in Washington want to get busy regulating this kind of political speech." 

"Congress needs to step in and clarify this issue," continued Readmond.  "Members of Congress need to hear from their constituents that they won't stand for this kind of speech regulation.  Speak now, while you still can."


So much for freedom of speech.

Link


It would be interesting toknow why this "activist" judge ruled this way. You can't blame te FCC for this action, it had already stated that they were going to exempt the Internet but the judge pretty much told them that they couldn't. Now they need to have a vote on the subject and the left on the board won't vote on it. I wouldn't blame the govt per say, but I would blame those in teh Dem party that you support for not allowing a vote to take place to amend the act.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 06:03 pm
I love the lack of any facts in this story.

Sounds "boo" scary, eh kids?

Another scare tactic by Americans for Tax Reform that has little basis in reality.

Go read the entire judge's ruling...

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-1984.pdf
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 06:25 pm
Quote:

It would be interesting toknow why this "activist" judge ruled this way. You can't blame te FCC for this action, it had already stated that they were going to exempt the Internet but the judge pretty much told them that they couldn't. Now they need to have a vote on the subject and the left on the board won't vote on it. I wouldn't blame the govt per say, but I would blame those in teh Dem party that you support for not allowing a vote to take place to amend the act.


I don't know where to begin with this... A little bit about U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. She was first appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1984. This is from her official biography.
Quote:
Judge Kotelly was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve as a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure from June 2000 through May 2002, and in May 2002 Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed Judge Kotelly to serve as Presiding Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court , which is a 7-year appointment.
Clearly, the conservatives have every reason to hate her with friends like Reagan and Rhenquist.

The FEC. NOT the FCC.

The judge ruled on the law passed by Congress. She ruled that the FEC failed to implement it as it was intended. Hardly, a radical ruling. THis is a nice summary
Quote:
In a case pending since Spring (Docket No. 02-1984), District Court Judge Kollar-Kotelly found mostly in favor of plaintiffs-Congressmen Shays and Meehan in their challenge to various of the rules promulgated by the FEC to implement McCain-Feingold (Shays-Meehan). The judge found some key rules to be defective under one of two prongs of the standard review set out in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 830 (l984): failure to follow clearly expressed Congressional intent, or to adopt a permissible construction of the statute. She held other rules to have been adopted with inadequately reasoned justification, or with inadequate notice, in violation of the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court, having reached these conclusions, declined to specifically enjoin the enforcement of the rules, but instead remanded them to the Federal Election Commission for further action consistent with the opinion.


http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/articles/20040920.cfm Or see my link to the ENTIRE ruling above.

The FCC(sic) can't vote to amend the act. The act was passed by Congress and only Congress can amend it. The FEC can only write the rules for enforcement. I haven't seen anyone in Congress attempting to bring FECA (the law) back to be amended so clearly you can't blame the Dems for this one.

The only thing the Dems on the FEC are blocking is a vote to appeal the decision. Hardly a radical thing to do. It would be a rather large waste of money. If you are a judge and the person that wrote a law says it means one thing and someone else says it means something else, who are you more likely to believe? It is NOT an activist judge that takes the word of the lawmaker as the most likely intent of the law.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 07:06 pm
I don't care whose fault it is, it is still disgusting that they are even touching freedom of speech on the internet and typical of the times that we find ourselves in. If the dems are to blame, though I don't see how seeing how they can't do anything else, then shame on them too.

I am beginning to think the whole McCain-Feingold campaign finance law thing needs to be revisited because from what parados said, the judge is not to blame for merely enforcing the law. The law itself needs to be looked at more closely evidently.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 07:18 pm
revel,
The law doesn't say that all political speech is banned on the internet. That is a straw man created to scare you. McCain Feingold is to regulate money in campaigns.

I haven't looked into the actual complaint of Shays but I am pretty sure it has to do with 527s and their use of TV, radio and the internet. Most of the information I have found so far has to do with the commercials created by 527s, like MoveOn.org, that were created using donated money but then only played on the internet. The FEC failed to institute any regulation of money when it came to campaign use with the internet. That is what the judge ruled on. The law required SOME regulation. Just as the law required some regulation of 527s on TV that the FEC failed to implement fully.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 07:49 pm
Unless your blog has some direct financial and/or operational connection with a political party or other campaign organization, there is nothing in this of interest to or impact on you. Those who have used the internet to subvert both the letter and intent of McCain-Fenigold are at exposure to some inconvenience, on the other hand.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Mar, 2005 09:56 pm
I could be overreacting; but to me it seems a slippery slope to internet censoring regardless of what the particular case is.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » FEC may crack down on bloggers
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 06:41:23