« the mouse and the elephant | Main | Ya just can't make this stuff up ... »
March 05, 2005
It was the strawberries ... the strawberries ...
For good reason the blogsphere is rightfully alarmed by the threats coming from the FEC in regards to free speech on the Internet. Transcripts of the interview with FEC commissionar Bradley Smith can be found at Redstate.org.
She [Judge Koller-Cotella] orders us to regulate the Internet, again what I point out is -- it is in no way limited to paid advertising. In fact, it would be contrary to the tone of the opinions limited only to paid advertising. In another part of the opinion, she struck down one of our regulations where we exempted unpaid advertising. So, I, you know, this was, it’s – it’s in no ways limited to unpaid advertising ...The McCain-Feingold Campaign "reform" bill was conceived and passed before I became a blogger. At that time, I posted on message boards, some on Yahoo!, where I argued vehemently against the bill as a direct assault on free speech. The idea that somehow if some speech could be defined as having "monetary value" then it could be regulated as "in-kind" contributions struck me, not as a noble exercise to keep so-called corruption out of elections, but as a fortification of the incumbents' ramparts against the challenging rabble. Indeed, the restrictions on all ads within the immediate time-period before an election is particularly egregious. Of course, one didn't see any particularly hard-hitting newspaper editorials opposing McCain-Feingold because such free-speech regulation reinforces the newspapers' traditional King-making power. Newspapers can still run their own editorial endorsements and, as we clearly saw in the last election, can slant their "news" coverage of the candidates in support of their editorial position.I note that we didn’t have enough votes to muster up an appeal of the judge’s decision, uh, on this particular issue, so obviously, uh, half of my colleagues [the 3 Democrats] at least feel that we should be doing more regulation of the Internet.
The McCain-Feingold Incumbents Protection Act got its impetus during the 2000 campaign as John McCain railed, shrieked and gnashed his teeth over "dirty Texas money" financed independent ads sullying his sainted and clearly not-to-be-questioned record in Arizona. McCain was so incensed over individuals exercising their First Amendment rights on their own dime he figured it had to be a conspiracy that must be stopped. The MSM embraced the "maverick" McCain who's ostensible mantel of Republicanism allowed them to use his intemperate remarks and attacks on fellow Republicans as a figleaf for their own anti-Republican bent. They rarely questioned his red-faced podium pounding about "reforming" campaign "finances" and certainly didn't ask the tough questions on squaring the outright bans on "advocacy" with the First Amendment.
And now, in the wake of the 2004 elections and the success of the blogsphere, the sights of those who can't stand independent speech has been set upon the Internet and bloggers. The language of the McCain-Feingold used to piddle all over the Constitution in regards to "in-kind contributions" is being geared up as a firehose aimed at people who are using the Internet as a virtual townhall. It's not only Free Speech but Free Association that has arroused the continued ire of Capt. John McQueeg (as evidenced by his disingenuous attacks on the Swiftboat Vets who spoke out against John Kerry). For McQueeg and his fellow travelers in the FEC, people are allowed only to associate, trade information, debate the merits and demerits of issues and candidates when such activities ineffectual. There is little difference in kind between my advocacy speech in puting up a "Bush-Cheney 04" sign in my front yard and having the same graphic on my weblog. But McQueeg wants my weblog defined as a "monetary contribution." If I host a cocktail party for 25 neighbors to share campaign literature I received from a presidential candidate or I send an email to 25 people in my address book with the same information, McQueeg wants the FEC to "regulate" the latter.
As long as us little-people know our place on the good ship [Mc]Caine, Cap'n John won't punish us.
I call bovine excrement. This is a direct assault on the Constitution. And I don't want to hear about "end runs" around the regulations that call for bloggers to have to do something to "qualify" as the press so they can get an exemption. I have the right under the First Amendment to Free Speech and Free Association. No one, no McQueeg, no Judge Koller-Cotella, no FEC Democrat can take that away. My blog is my own piece of virtual real estate and if I can have a sign on my lawn or a cocktail party in my house than I can damned well do the same thing here.
I will not be shutup or shutdown. The last thing all the McQueeg's want to fool with is a pre-menopausal woman. I just am in no mood to suffer such mendacity.
Others discussing the issue:
Jeff Harrell rightfully points out that the Federalist Papers (a series of public relation advocacy releases written under a :::gasp::: pen name) would have been banned under McCain-Feingold.
Capt. Ed writes an open letter here
LaShawn Barber notes that this issue unites bloggers across the political spectrum here.
Powerline has been running with this across several posts, the latest on how McQueeg's mouthpiece is trying to deceptively quiet the great unwashed bloggers.
Michelle Malkin posts a nice roundup of related links.
You know, hyperlinks which the FEC thinks represents in-kind "contributions". Gosh, ya'think if I put a bunch of charity hyperlinks on my blog the IRS will let me deduct them as "in-kind" monetary contributions??
Of course, the irrepressible CITIZEN JOURNALIST weighs with a mini-manifesto and an update.
UPDATE Capt. Salty, while disclaiming any endorsement of McCain-Feingold, skates around the semantics of "advocacy" and "activism" while asking why shouldn't "activist" Screw-'em-Markos be regulated by campaign "finance" laws. Let me be perfectly clear and this is where my libertarian side (do notice the small "L") comes to the fore. As long as all financial arrangements are disclosed and transparent, IMHO any further "regulation" of campaign "finances" are an assault on the First Amendment. Limiting MY ability to use MY money, whether it's for a backyard BBQ for Bush or a weblog for the Governator, is a direct contradiction of everything the Founding Fathers were thinking when they drew up the Constitution.
Posted by Darleen at March 5, 2005 08:58 AM
Comments
One suggestion, When you post images you should use hspace="10" and vspace="10" in the img tag to give the image some padding around it. That way the text is not touching the picture. It looks better.
Posted by: Joefish at March 5, 2005 04:04 PM
Thanks, Joe.
Sometimes I just forget to do those little things that help with the presentation on my own blog.
:-)
Posted by: Darleen at March 5, 2005 04:35 PM
The McCain-Feingold bill may be used by some as an attempt to infringe on free speech but that was never its intent.
During the debate over McCain-Feingold, supporters and opponents alike knew that a ban on soft money would have a significant impact on the campaign finance system. After all, the Democratic and Republican parties raised nearly half a billion dollars in soft money for the 2000 and 2002 elections. Because it could be given in unlimited amounts of $100,000, $250,000, or more, soft money allowed corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals to wield tremendous influence over the political process -- much MORE influence than the average VOTER.
With their generous contributions, soft money donors were doing more than supporting the democratic process. They were making an INVESTMENT. Many of them were hoping that their contribution would pay off in the form of a policy decision or a bill endorsement at some later date. (Read that as paybacks.)
Supporters of reform say soft money made large contributors indispensable to the political parties and reduced the power of the broader electorate. (That’s you and me Darleen.)
In plain speak, soft money was allowing persons with big pockets to exert undue influence on the election. Since the wealthy make up approximately 2% of the population it is dangerous to allow that minority of people to have an unbalanced influence on who our elected officials are.
The bill was intended to prevent those with large sums of money from swaying the vote as election time approached, and that is why the 60 day clause was added. This bill was aimed at large donations and never intended to be used on individuals such as yourself. Unless you plan to donate thousands to television or radio ads that direct traffic to your site I don't see how the bill could even remotely be applied to bloggers such as yourself.
President Bush signed the bill rather than veto it, so he must not have considered it a threat to free speech. We have to rest assured that clear thinking individuals will prevail in preventing this law from being misused.
I support this bill on the basis that it prevents wealthy persons or entities from unduly influencing the election process. I also support your right to question this bill and will protest long and loud if ever the bill is used to infringe on your right to post opinions of any kind.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE.
Posted by: teaspoon at March 6, 2005 08:28 AM
"I support this bill on the basis that it prevents wealthy persons or entities from unduly influencing the election process."
Like George Soros?
Power to the people indeed.
Posted by: nonsense at March 8, 2005 09:43 PM
There Are No 'Federal' Elections
By Ben DoubleCrossed
Please encourage your Congressman to co-sponsor Representative Roscoe Bartlett's “First Amendment Restoration Act” — HR 46.
There are no 'Federal' elections, only elections for federal office held in the states. 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 .. exercise of 1st Amendment freedoms, the ability to make an informed choice, the election of new leadership with fresh 'people first' ideas?
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).
Now the Cancer of Censorship is Spreading to the Web
and we must
Fight Tyranny with Keystrokes
The Federal Election Commission will consider rulemaking to apply the Bipartisan Campaign Act to politics on the web sometime in March 2005. An FEC employee told me there will be a press release on March 17th or 24th. According to articles on Zdnet and Worldnet Daily, proposed regulations may require blog posters to register with the FEC, report expenditures at regular intervals, assign a value to hyperlinks and set contribution limits.
Do you want to familiarize yourself with terms like: political action committee (PAC), independent vs in-Kind donations, issue vs express advocacy, spending limits, reporting intervals and coordination with a candidate’s campaign, before engaging in political discussion on the web? And remember failure to comply with campaign finance laws is a felony!
This is America’s last chance to keep a vestige of freedom of speech, press and assembly once guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. Public input will be accepted via email, fax and snail mail so watch http://www.fec.gov for your opportunity. In the interim, write your Congressmen, www.house.gov/, and Senators, www.senate.gov/ , and demand legislation to exempt the internet!
Posted by: Ben DoubleCrossed at March 27, 2005 10:51 PM