Say Anything Blog

[...] A Campaign Finance Reform “See, We TOLD You So!” I’m tempted to say something like, “They can NOT be serious” about this, but those of us who warned that this is where so-called “campaign finance reform” would end up know better.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. 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.I was initially startled when I read about this development, but my shock didn’t last long. This is how liberal busybodying governance works. A phony “populist” cause is cited as justification to impose stiff federal regulation upon the related, alleged “problem.” A bureaucracy is created, or assigned, to do the regulating. And that bureaucracy then proceeds to run amok, running far afield of the original scope and/or intent of the law, because that is what regulators do. They’re like public sector energizer bunnies - they just keep going and going and going and going....The difference with the “Campaign Finance Reform Act” is that using the First Amendment for kleenex and toilet paper at the same time wasn’t an unintended consequence of Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, but their conscious objective.Captain Ed, speaking for the entire blogosphere (Michelle Malkin, MyDD, Atrios, DailyKos, In the Agora, Winfield Myers, Instapundit, Steven Bainbridge, Pajama Hadin, Rightwing Nuthouse, Say Anything, Baronger’s Scribblings, Mike Krempasky, Susanna Cornett, Hennessy’s View, The Anchoress, Polipundit, Red State, among many, many others) is pissed:The FEC, thanks to a John McCain lawsuit, will have to calculate the value of a link on a political website in order to determine whether the owner has overdonated to a campaign—in other words, committed a felony. Bigger blogs will come under closer scrutiny, which means that any expression of support on CQ with a referential hyperlink may well get valued at more than the $2,000 maximum hard-cash contribution.In order for me to operate under those conditions, I will need to hire a lawyer and an accountant to guide me through the election laws and calculate my in-kind donations on almost an hourly basis. How many bloggers will put up with that kind of hassle just to speak their minds about candidates and issues? John McCain and Russ Feingold have effectively created an American bureaucracy dedicated to stamping out independent political speech, and the courts have abdicated all reason in declaring it constitutional.And, never let it be forgotten, George W. Bush signed the damn thing into law. If he’d taken the same stance in the GWOT, we’d all be slinking around in burkas by now.This is redundant proof that what “Sailor” and the Donks really want to expunge from American politics is not money, but free, unfettered, independent speech.Isn’t this just the kind of thing we’re trying to get rid of in the Middle East?UPDATE: If La Shawn Barber wants a trackback link, La Shawn Barber will get one.... [...]

Uh oh. No more entertainment for me.

Its a free speech issue more than anything else. I can annoy people in cyberspace more effectively and with less threat of bodily harm.

My trackback isn’t working, Rob. I keep trying to link to you and Haloscan will have none of it. Sorry.

Sorry my comment did sound a bit ignorant. Yes, it is a big deal. However my point is even if it does get passed it won’t be a huge deal. “How would they keep track” is only a smaller problem of the bigger problem. If you host your domain with a private registrar, then it would be hard to find you. Also there would be so many court cases they wouldn’t know what to do. This whole bill is to the point of laughable.

"If you post favorable comments about a candidate you could be asked to detail percentage of the price of the computer as well as the price of the electricity used in this political advocacy. These costs will be deemed “contributionsâ€? and regulated by the FEC.”

...and if I say something favorable, I need to figure how much of my day was spent saying it and count the percentage of the cost of my food for the day as a “contribution”?… Insane, but I can see them trying to pass it.

Try this.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I actually linked to Kerry’s website during the last campaign more than I linked to Bush’s.

I wonder if all those links would be counted as “contributions.” And how in the world would they manage to keep track of it all?

Anyway, I disagree Ian.  It is a big deal.  As citizens we have a right to write about any political candidate we wish and support them with our words and links.  This regulation is nonsense.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Eh even if this was passed, big deal. I don’t (nor do many other bloggers) link to political websites such as GWB’s campaign.

What if you used redirects or tinyurl to link?

If you linked to Oliver Willis’ article which linked to a Clinton site, does this count?

For the record - I’m Canadian.

It seems to me that every couple of months there is a new political movement afoot in the US to stamp on the Internet. I think the last big one was some spam law and before that I think it was the enforcement of the age of majority on porn sites and now I suppose it’s Bit Torrent.

I have to laugh a bit every time I hear about US politicians attempting to heel in the Internet. They might as well try to capture all the fresh air in the world. It’s absolutely unenforceable in the vast majority of cases, yet millions if not billions of dollars are wasted on the trying to curb the ‘evil Internet’ every year.

I don’t even think that most of them realize that the Internet even exists outside the US.

Provides me with hours of amusement....

You could be right Jon.

The problem with this is that a lot of political bloggers, like myself, blog under their real names.  Should they push this it wouldn’t be too hard for them to track me down and shut this site down.  Or at least severly limit my ability to post on political topics.

I suppose I could then go anonymous with out-of-country hosting...but still the point is that we’re supposed to have free speech in this country.  That means free of this regulation and ther non-sense.

Pretty soon they’re going to be counting the number of favorable words you speak about a candidate as contributions.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The blogosphere is too big, and the FEC is too ineffective--there’d be an incredible backlash, from the left and from the right.

The actual enforcement of this would border on ridiculous, especially since there would be no method to really calculate this or control it without it leaking into other forums--if they’re going after me for being a Republican writer, they should at least find that guy who passes out papers for the Communist party and charge him for his shoes and his copy costs.

They aren’t fond of the Internet because they can’t control it. They are already mitigating their own argument--what would constitute an improper link? The vagaries are going to kill this. Or a bunch of bloggers in their pajamas will :O)

It sure is an ugly spectre regardless of how it turns out.

I’d be very concerned about the mental maturity of the people who thought this thing up.

Those people would be John McCain and Russ Feingold, with an honorable mention going to President Bush for signing it into law.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Please encourage your Congressman to co-sponsor Representative Roscoe Bartlett’s “First Amendment Restoration Actâ€? — HR 46.

There Are No ‘Federal’ Elections
Only elections for federal offices held in the various states
By Ben Double Crossed

The Federal Election Commission is not the solution to corruption in Federal Politics ... it is the corruption of Federal Politics!

Ask yourself the question: who is better suited to regulating federal politicians, federal politicians or state politicians and the people? The founding fathers delegated authority for holding and regulating elections to the states and the people:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

The Federal Election Commission’s claim to jurisdiction over ‘Federal’ elections is both constitutionally and historically bogus.  There are no ‘Federal’ elections, only elections for federal offices held in the various states.

If you visit the Federal Election Commission on the internet (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml), you will find under the title “Historical Background” the Federal Campaign Reform Act was not written until 1971.  The FEC opened its doors in 1975 and administered the first publicly funded Presidential election in 1976. http://www.fec.gov/pdf/citizen_guide_pub.pdf

Allowing federal politicians to write the laws regulating how they are elected is equivalent to ‘please massah don’t beat me anymore’.  The Constitution was not amended to grant the federal government authority to regulate state held elections?  Federal politicians ignored the lawful amendment process because they knew the states and the people would not approve!

Corruption Breeds Corruption: FECA Crowns the Royal Press

Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs.

The following serious abuse was not reported because the 4th estate was the abuser.

Some of our nation’s largest newspapers found themselves in federal court loosing antitrust suits which accused them of purchasing financially troubled newspapers and then pretending to compete with them while rigging prices.

The Newspaper Preservation Act was working its way through congress and was designed to grant antitrust relief to the affected newspapers.  Richard Nixon and his, Attorney General, were on record as strongly opposed to the passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act.

A newspaper executive wrote a letter to President Nixon as his re-election approached. The letter reminded President Nixon that the nation’s largest Newspaper chains published in those states that had the largest number of electoral votes. The carefully worded letter reminded President Nixon that it could be difficult to be re-elected without their editorial support.

President Nixon reversed his position and used his political skills to convince congress to pass the Newspaper Preservation Act. 

[See pgs.95-99] The Media Monopoly 5th edition paperback by Professor Ben HBagdikian.

The newly minted campaign laws should have castigated the 4th estate as well as Nixon?  Instead the Federal Election Campaign Reform Act exempted them and created the ‘Royal Corporate Press’:

The following reference to the Press Exemption is excerpted from a letter by Senator Mitch McConnell

Section 431(9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a “special interest” by any definition, and heavily engaged in the “issue advocacy” and “independent expenditure” realms of political persuasion that most editorial boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages in it.  To illustrate the absurdity of this special exemption the media enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the fact that if the RNC bought NBC from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and, under the McCain-Feingold “reform” bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a candidate 60 days before an election.  This is patently absurd.

Had the Senate debate on the McCain-Feingold bill advanced to the point of amendments, among the first I offered would have been one to delete section 431(9)(B)(i).  Whenever the opportunity presents itself in the future, I look forward to doing just that.  I believe it would be an enlightening discussion.  Indeed, the issue was frequently raised during the floor debates in 1997 and 1998 and helped to crystallize for Senators and the C-SPAN viewing audience that the campaign finance debate is, indeed, a discussion of core constitutional freedom.” Excerpt from Mitch McConnell’s July 8, 1998 letter to his constituent Richard Lewis. - http://amendment10.tripod.com/Mhome.gif

And Gags We the People

Amendment 1
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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What part of Congress Shall Pass no law does Congress not understand?  And what about rights granted to citizens by State Constitutions:

Kentucky Constitution, Section 8
Freedom of speech and of the press.
Printing presses shall be free to every person who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the General Assembly or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. Every person may freely and fully speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.
History: Not yet amended.

Until the “corporate press” exemption is addressed, the ombudsman at the newspaper office acts as the gatekeeper of free political speech.  If the newspaper prints your political comments about an issue or candidate, your advocacy may reach a circulation of hundreds of thousands and you enjoy the same exemption from campaign finance spending limits and reporting requirements as the New York Times.

Ink by the Barrel trumps ink by the bottle:

If the newspaper rejects your article and you decide to deliver your message door to door via handbills, you need to visit the Federal Election Commission and familiarize yourself with terms like: political action committee, independent Vs in-Kind donations, issue Vs express advocacy, spending limits, reporting intervals and coordination with a candidate’s campaign. If that isn’t daunting enough to discourage you from participating, remember failure to comply with Campaign Finance Laws is a felony.

A newspaper may endorse a candidate and reprint his platform daily, but an individual or grassroots organization doing so may be limited in how much can be spent. To compete with the circulation of a newspaper individuals or organizations must make ‘Independent Expenditures’. 

As subscribers to a newspaper we expect columnists to interview a candidate prior to publishing an editorial.  But if a citizen or grassroots organization interviews a candidate before publishing and distributing handbills promoting that candidate, they have committed “coordination” and the total amount they can spend in a campaign is limited.

At 2 cents per handbill, individuals or grassroots organizations reach campaign spending limits after reaching a small fraction of the circulation of many newspapers.  And so I ask, since no matter how fast I walk handbills cannot compete with newspapers or broadcasters, why are grassroots efforts regulated while corporate media are not?

Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add… artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. (President Andrew Jackson, veto of national bank bill, July 10, 1832).

Campaign finance laws restrict grassroots influence and that protects the political interest of approximately 4% of our U.S. population, who finance federal election campaigns.  [the 4% figure is from a government study]

FECA’s Mission is Confused, Misinformed and Unnecessary

Confused
The 1974 amendments also established an independent agency, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to enforce the law, facilitate disclosure and administer the public funding program. Congress made further amendments to the FECA in 1976 following a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valero; major amendments were also made in 1979 to streamline the disclosure process and expand the role of political parties.

The next set of major amendments came in the form of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Among other things, the BCRA banned national parties from raising or spending nonfederal funds (often called “soft money�), restricted so-called issue ads, increased the contribution limits and indexed certain limits for inflation.

Can someone explain to me how the two statements in red above, from the FEC website, jibe?  How does the latter serve to expand the role of political parties?

Misinformed
The Press Exemption:
2 USC 431 (9) (B) The term “expenditure” does not include -
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed
through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper,
magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities
are owned or controlled by any political party, political
committee, or candidate;

During the 40s and early 50s Louisville, Kentucky, where I grew up, was typical of many communities across the nation.  Louisville had a Democratic and a Republican newspaper and that was how the parties made war with each other over issues and attempted to woo voters.  How is it that using newspapers to promote political views of like minded readership fallen out of vogue and become a practice that needs oversight of a Federal Censor?

Unnecessary
What do all these rule about how much money can be spent communicating political ideas about issues and candidates protect the public from .. the ability to make an informed choice?

The Newspaper Exemption is bogus and must be repealed. If a politician must pay newspapers and broadcasters to carry his ads how can positive or negative editorials by those same media outlets not have value? Newspapers and Radio and Television Broadcasters are corporations and dependent on advertising revenue from the same special interests that campaign reforms are supposedly written to protect the public from.

Does anyone remember the “New Coke” advertisement campaign? Despite spending millions it failed, because people did not like “New Coke”. National politics should be free to all competing ideas and groups according to their means.  A well written handbill can trump a million dollar campaign and that is why grassroots are gagged and the corporate press is exempt!

Prior to the Federal Campaign Act American citizens did not need to ask anyone permission to participate in politics and that was what the 1st Amendment intended.

Since the passage of the Federal Campaign Reform Act the percentage of incumbent federal politicians has reached the all time high of 95-98%.  That is a higher percentage than politburo members were reelected in cold war Russia.  Federal Campaign laws written by our federal employees are incumbent protection acts.  Federal campaign laws have not leveled the playing field and made it easier for challengers or independent parties (although 1/3rd of Americans are no registered as Independents).

I think political blogs are great!  I think they are a great source of information!
Please visit my new dabate forum for debate of todays issues!  http://debatetheissues.proboards46.com/index.cgi

[...] This is the same kind of regulation of political speech the FEC was (or perhaps still is) considering for application to blogging. [...]

[...] There has been talk in the past of the FEC regulating political activity on the internet. This regulation would include classifying blog postings favoring one candidate (or disfavoring another) as “campaign contributions” limited by a set monetary amount. Which would mean that the FEC would come up with a “value” for a politically-oriented blog post and would limit the number of those a blogger could make during an election cycle so that it does not exceed the maximum allowable contribution. [...]

[...] Others on McCain/Feingold (with links to even more): Anchoress Michelle Malkin La Shawn Barber Pajama Hadin Say Anything [...]