11 days left to protect bloggers from FEC

[Melodybe]

I got this in the mail and thought it was important:

Friends,

Time is running out at the Federal Election Commission. The period for public comment on the proposed rulemaking regarding the Internet closes June 3, 2005.

As a blogger, or blog reader - you have valuable input from your firsthand experience that the FEC desperately needs. You don't have to be a lawyer, and you've got a duty to weigh in. Please take a moment and read over and endorse the 11 Principles for Online Freedom we've written up with the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Institute for Politics, Technology, and The Internet: http://fec.cdt.org/signup.php

If you'd like to file your own comment, here are two places where you can find help and instructions:

RedState.org: http://fec.redstate.org/story/2005/5/20/122244/721
DailyKos.com: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/23/103820/231

Once you do submit a comment, please consider sending us a copy. Knowing what bloggers are telling the FEC will help throughout this process.

Best,

Mike Krempasky
Michael Bassik

[EFerrari]

1. Bookmarked and kicked.

:kick:

[Melodybe]

2. kick for the bloggers

[CC]

3. Emailed out, written to

and kick for bloggers.

[merh]

4. Nominated, bookmarked and kicked!

:kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

5. Very important! Recommended. n/t

[snot]

6. extremely impt- thanks & kick!

[benny05]

7. Thanks

signed..and :kick:

[NVMojo]

8. nominated, signed and kicked!!!

[Tesla]

9. Signed an kicked!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. Can you explain to me...

...why the internet shouldn't be subject to FEC regulations as is every other media type?

[DrDebug]

11. Because it is a media of individuals and not of corperations

As is said on the CDT site:
http://fec.cdt.org/archives/principle/index.html

4. The Federal Election Commission should adopt a presumption against the regulation of election-related speech by individuals on the Internet, and should avoid prophylactic rules aimed at hypothetical or potential harms that could arise in the context of Internet political speech of individuals. Instead, the Commission should limit regulation to those activities where there is a record of demonstrable harms.

In the past, the Federal Communications Commission (‘FEC”) has written very broad rules to try to prevent wealthy interests from exerting a corrupting influence over the political process. Those rules have often been based on hypothetical or potential misconduct, not on clear evidence of a problem. We believe that this would be the wrong approach to campaign finance regulation of individuals’ political speech on the Internet, where broad prophylactic rules would hurt millions of ordinary Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out on elections and political issues. This principle urges the FEC to change it approach to regulation on the Internet and only regulate individual speakers where there is a real record of abuse by big money interests.
--- --- --- --- --- ---
In case of DU there is no structure here. It's basically a group of 10,000+ individuals shouting at one-another and making comments. There may be rules and guidelines and people to enforce them (moderators and administrators), but that is only to keep this place more or less in order.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Hmm...

...but individuals *are* already subject to various FEC regulations, including contribution amounts, etc. Can you explain why paid political speech on the internet shouldn't be dealt with in the same way as television advertising? It is essentialy intended to serve the same purpose. Regulation of unpaid political speech is another thing altogether, but unless I'm misreading the documents, that's not what FEC are proposing.

[DrDebug]

14. Well that's why the input is important

Because it is unlike that they are going to put the $250 threshold on it, because most banner campaign will be nowhere near that amount of money.

That means that action groups will be hurt most of all, because for small amounts of money they now need to have a complete administration and they should be set up with all the legal frameworks required. This will make it very hard for small action groups.

We have the bumpersticker of DU and the T-Shirts which some of the people here sell. If that qualifies as "paid advertisement", it'll probably mean that those methods will disappear.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. That isn't the same as receiving contributions from a candidate or PAC

My understanding is that the FEC's proposed regs would only deal with speech funded by candidates, PACs, and other orgs already covered under FEC regs in every other medium. That's not really the same thing as DU selling bumper stickers.

[DrDebug]

16. It includes promotes or supports a political party/candidate

Or attacks or opposes a political party/candidate

So DU falls under that category, since it opposes the Republican party. Even though it allows other parties as well, it is still mainly used for the Democratic party.

(cdt snip)
if two or more independent online speakers collaborate on a web site, they may have to register with the FEC as a “political committee;”

[geckosfeet]

21. Two or more people engaged in political discourse or action

whether on the internet or a street corner should not be subject to FEC controls. This would be a fundamental obstruction of free speech.

If you want to protest, picket or campaign on a street corner you need a permit etc. however if you want to stand there and talk to your friends about politics you should be free to do so,,, (unless of course you are at one of *'s political rallies/events).

On the internet, the rights and freedoms that you have in real space should be extended to your blog or website. Collecting money to pay for hosting and software may be subject to some kind of regulatory review process but should be essentially un-obstructed.

This is not to say that web sites designed to collect money and funnel it directly to the politcal parties and candidates should not be subject to the same regulations as other fund raising methods.

There should be clear distinctions made between using the internet for blogging and websites and using it for raising money for political campaigns and candidates.

It seems the types of speech and actions being described in "The Principles" are not those related to fundraising activities for campaigns and candidates and should therefore be unregulated.

[Clark2008]

30. Newspapers aren't regulated by the FEC, either.

And they're "media."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. They are if they accept contributions from political campaigns n/t

[Clark2008]

35. Newspapers accept contributions from the FEC?

I don't think so - at least none I ever worked for.

The political ads in them may be governed by the FEC, but they're only limited to the advertising, not the news content.

[Lindsay]

12. Signed.

And thanks for bringing this to our attention.

[Roland99]

17. How are blogs any different from op/ed pages in newspapers?

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. Exactly!

[AllyCat]

18. Signed and sent to friends. n/t

[markus]

19. My comment submitted via email

Any rule making which treated third-party support or opposition of candidates via the Internet would have a tremendously chilling effect on free and unfettered political speech.

If you are prepared to treat Interet advocacy as coordinated, you would in fairness have to expand this to include AM talk radio, coordinated third party activities such as those condcuted by quasi-religious organizations for voter education, etc.

The inclusion of links to other sites are intrinsic to the architecture ("physical" structure)of the World Wide Web (WWW). To regulate such links in the way your propose would be akin to saying third parties would be free to call talk radio in support of their candidate, provided they did not use that candidate'w name.

Any such ruling would be a clear infringement on my Constitutional rights to free speech and free association.

Name
Postal Address

[lonestarnot]

20. done

[Callboy]

22. thanks

keep us updated....

[annabanana]

23. kick this

Small donations will never get the voice they deserve if they can't organize.

[Strawman]

24. Signed...thanks

[chomskysright]

25. here are some possible referenced comment points:

The 'public communication is one key element in what qualifies as
coordinated communication' (p. 11)...the 'internet has unique
characteristics' (p. 10)....'communications over the internet are not 'as
invasive'....(p. 11)....'proposes to preserve the general exclusion of
internet communications from the definition of 'public communication' in
(p. 14).....(moving toward considering monitoring ) 'paid internet
advertising'.....if a mode of communication does not cost any money it can
be general 'public communication' (p. 13)....


http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2005/mtgdoc05-16.pdf

[EnfantTerrible]

26. Where do we send copies of our comments

once we have sent them to the FEC? The post requested a copy and I was wondering if you had a link to Mike Krempasky and Micheal Bassik.

[JRob]

27. done

[chomskysright]

28. "The Bloggers are Winning": news from Occupied Iraq newspaper:

Read the full article / Leggi l'articolo completo: www.uruknet.info/?p=12028


Bloggers are outwitting the Mainstream and Corporate Media!
Abu Assur


May 24, 2005

These days, they are rather worried. They are of no use any longer ! They have lost their aura. The carpet is being withdrawn from underneath their feet. Worse, they might even lose their jobs. They have become a burden for their employer. You guessed whom I am talking about ! The mainstream media or their masters' voice, the corporate media.

In the near past, these cacophonous trumpets, used to have an idol to worship. They were his press officers. Every morning there was an assembly to praise him. "We will do whatever possible to promote you Idol darling" be idol Zion or Wall street Mafiosi. The best liar the better paid adepts. They terrified anyone. Weapons of Mass Destruction, Shock and awe, Iraq Freedom. Surgical bombings. Detainees abuse (No tortures please, we are Christians bigots) Coalition of the willing (billing, killing, wilting!) They had no rivals. No competitors. They had a free arena, to lie, to falsify, to bark and yelp at will and to rewrite history. They declared victory when their masters were trampled upon. They invented euphemism and a new gibberish lingo.

These cawing crows terrified and threatened every bird singing outside their ranks and their sealed club. They call names who ever didn't embrace idol Zion ideology in the Arab region. They use to crown and destitute at will eunuch satraps, kinglets, idiot sheikhs or senile vicars...."

[mom cat]

29. I so appreciate your efforts to bring this to our awareness. I wrote the

following in response to the fourth question:
I frequently expressed my views on line about the election and related issues. I did wonder when some "angle" would be put forth to try to silence or at least muffle this very potent form of free speech. I fear that any attempt to regulate INTERNET free speech, even in the name of campaign finance reform, will be a direct threat to the voices that oppose this current administration. There is a plethora of campaign finance reform issues that desperately need to be addressed, especially the inordinate influence that big money can buy..and does. Any attempt to advance the cause of campaign finance reform that punishes free speech of of the masses without curtailing the gross abuses of the wealthy will be seen for what it is: a raw abuse of power.

I will now send this comment to the other appropriate places. Feel free to use any or all of it as you see fit.

[kcass1954]

32. Thanks for this very important reminder.

First amendment rights are being trampled on by this misadministration. And the corporate media doesn't care!

I just sent an email. I don't have a web page and I don't blog. But I depend on so many others who do to get information that the corporate media either glosses over or completely ignores. I don't want ANY governmental control over this, either now or in the future. NO BIG BROTHER!!!

[V Lee]

34. My comments to the FEC

I have no objection to FEC regulation of paid Internet political advertising (such as buying banner ads that promote a candidate) in the same manner as political advertising on any other distribution channel, such as TV, radio, or newspaper.

What I do strenuously object to is any effort to regulate or restrict in any way the right of an individual, such as a "blogger," to express their personal opinions on the Internet. That is a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The Internet is the modern version of the public square of years gone by. Where people once gathered in the town square (a physical space) to express their views and discuss issues, people now gather on the Internet (a virtual space) to do the same. If people have the right to physically gather in public and express themselves, then they must, by definition, have that same right in the virtual Internet space.

The important issue is not the nature of the gathering, whether physical or virtual, that is irrelevant. The important issue is the right of people to gather, using whatever means the technology of their day allows, and freely express their views to one another. The mechanism that facilitates the gathering may have changed from a horse, to a steam train, to an automobile, to a jet aircraft, to the Internet, but the fundamental right to express one’s opinion to others remains unchanged.

If there is a need to differentiate between paid political advertising and personal expression on the Internet, it would seem that the need could be met by requiring a disclaimer for paid political advertisements. Such a disclaimer should clearly identify the content as paid advertising to distinguish it from personal opinion and editorial content.

Whatever method of differentiation and/or regulation is used, the burden should be placed on paid advertisements, not on individuals who are exercising their right of free expression.


>> What's on Bill's mind? Political commentary with attitude and more at http://www.BillsBrain.com

[mom cat]

36. Help! I am having trouble responding to this gobbledegoop!

As best as I can see, the commission wants specific comments foe specific proposed changes. The links that are provided do not offer that option, bue rather ask for endorsement of some nice principles and ask for responces to sone questions...nice questions, but question that are only tangentially related to the issues for which the committee is seeking comment. Is it too late for someone to format a usable boiler plate cheat sheet on these complex issues.

[AuntiBush]

37. Can they get away with this? Oh. What am I saying.

We're no longer a "Democracy!"

Nominated and Kicked!

[morgan2]

38. any idiotic blogging regulations

will just lead to blogs being hosted outside the united states. The only effect it will have is to hurt us businesses.

[Massacure]

39. How does the FEC plan on enforcing it?

They don't have jurisdictin in Canada or France or England or Germany or Russia or China or Korea and a hell of a lot of other countries.

[annabanana]

40. kickin in the morning. . .n/t