Regulation of Political Blogs Back in the News
Or should that be: “Regulation of Political News Back in the Blogs”?
Political bloggers who offer diverse views on Republicans and Democrats, war and peace argued on Thursday that they should be free of government regulation.The notion was echoed by some members of the government agency trying to write rules covering the Internet’s reach in political campaigns.
Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation’s campaign finance and spending limits to the Web.
The FEC, in its initial rules, had exempted the Internet.
This is very easy:
–McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court be damned. Likewise, Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), which upheld limits on campaign contributions, was wrongly decided.
–Putting that aside, even under McCain-Feingold, that which is free of money should be free of regulation. A blogger who pays no money to a campaign should be free to blog without any governmental interference whatsoever.
–Likewise, a blogger who receives no money from a campaign should be similarly free of all regulatory scrutiny.
–As for bloggers who give money or money’s worth (note: a favorable blogpost is not “money’s worth”), they should simply be subject to the same disclosure rules as any other campaign contributor; the fact that a contributor is also a blogger should mean absolutely nothing.
–Meanwhile, bloggers who receive money from candidates (e.g., through blogads, PayPal donations and the like) should still be exempt from any disclosure requirements — those should apply to the campaign, not the blogger.
There are already enough “follow the money” regulations, registration requirements and limits, both on contributers and campaigns, to make the incremental fact that a blog may be involved utterly irrelevant. The FEC, not to mention Congress, should just acknowledge that once and for all and move on.
Did I mention that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court be damned?
Similar Posts:
- Supreme Court Has (Yet Another) Chance to Eradicate McCain-Feingold
- Supreme Court to Revisit Campaign Contribution Limits
- Who Needs the FEC When You Have San Francisco?
- On Bloomberg’s “Beneficence”
- Lamont-Lieberman and McCain-Feingold
Filed under: Uncategorized
Of course it's unconstitutional. I agree with you there 100%.
Can we please have a "United States is not a Dictatorship fact of the day" post????
If a "United States is not a Dictatorship fact of the day" is so important, why not write about it yourself? But that's just a suggestion.
Anyway, I agree with this post completely. It's completely illogical that if a blogger expresses an opinion, that is somehow to monetary donations. What if I stand on a street corner and hand out leaflets, printed at my own expense? Just because something can (allegedly, of course, because I'll keep blogging) be regulated, doesn't mean it should be, as you point out.
Am I correct in assuming that you'd have a hard time at best voting for McCain for president?
[Kip replies: You are correct about McCain. He would never get my vote under any circumstances.
I would also like to point out that Downtown Lad is a top-notch political blogger and, like Tony, has a well-deserved spot on my Elite Eleven. He and I tend to disagree on only two issues: China and NYC real estate development.]
I meant no disrespect to Downtown Lad. Looking back at what I wrote, I see that it can quite easily be read that way. I apologize to him for the harsh tone. My intention was to imply "Two cheers for 'China is a Dictatorship' posts! Keep 'em coming."