The bill is a simple one. All it does is exempt internet communication (read: blogs) from regulation by the FEC. Some politicians in Washington would like to see political advocacy on blogs regulated as campaign donations, meaning that a blogger would be limited in the number of positive things (or negative things, I suppose) he or she could say about a specific candidate.
You can see why this legislation is so important. Bloggers are people exercising their freedom of speech. No regulation is needed. It's sad that we need legislation like this to remind some in Washington of that.
Apparently this bill is seeing some opposition from the left, specifically Nancy Pelosi. Let's hope it passes despite that.
Update:
It didn't pass:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Online political expression should not be exempt from campaign finance law, the House decided Wednesday as lawmakers warned that the Internet has opened up a new loophole for uncontrolled spending on elections.
The House voted 225-182 for a bill that would have excluded blogs, e-mails and other Internet communications from regulation by the Federal Election Commission. That was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed under a procedure that limited debate time and allowed no amendments.
The vote in effect clears the way for the FEC to move ahead with court-mandated rule-making to govern political speech and campaign spending on the Internet.
Opposition was led by Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who with Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., championed the 2002 campaign finance law that banned unlimited "soft money" contributions that corporations, unions and individuals were making to political parties.
"This is a major unraveling of the law," Meehan said. At a time when Washington is again being tainted by scandal, including the CIA leak case, "it opens up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process."
Oh give me a break. The 2002 campaign finance legislation was supposed to make money less of a factor in federal political campaigns, yet the 2004 election cycle saw two Presidential candidates spend more money in the history of this country on their campaigns. Clearly, this law isn't doing what it was intended to do.
Yet, for some reason, the majority of politicians in Washington are in favor of it. Why? I'm guessing it's because they don't like meddlesome folks like me on the internet criticizing them. The problem is that what people like me are doing the internet is no different than what the protesters who march in the streets are doing. They get their message across with placards and chants. I get mine across with a computer and written commentary. But it's all free speech, and none of it should be regulated (outside of libel/copyright laws, of course).
Organizations like the New York Times shouldn't be the only people with an unfettered ability to write and comment on politics, yet that seems to be the direction we're heading.
North Dakotans, it's worth mentioning that Rep. Earl Pomeroy was one of many Democrats who voted against this. You might want to contact him and ask him why he thinks citizens expressing their political opinions online need to be regulated. Here's the email I just sent:
Rep. Pomeroy,
I cannot tell you how disappointed I was with the failure of the Online Freedom of Speech Act today. I noted that you voted against it, and I do not understand why.
I run North Dakota's most visited political blog. Clearly, it is very important to me to be able to express my political opinions online. Yet I am afraid that if internet communication is not exempted from FEC regulation that there will soon be limits placed on my political blogging.
Why should the opinions of a citizen be regulated? What does it matter if I'm expressing myself on the street or on the internet?
I have posted on more on this subject here:
http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/11/02/online-freedom-of-speech-act-3/
I am interested in knowing your reasoning for voting against this.
Respectfully,
Rob Port