Bloggers of America, chill.
Reports of a Federal Election Commission plot to "crack down" on blogging and e-mail are wildly exaggerated.
First of all, we're not the speech police. We don't tell private citizens what they can or cannot say, on the Internet or anywhere else. The FEC regulates campaign finance. There's got to be some money involved, or it's out of our jurisdiction.
Second, let's get the facts straight. Congress, in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, limited how one can pay for communications that are coordinated with political campaigns, including any form of "general public political advertising."
The commission issued a regulation defining those communications to exempt anything transmitted over the Internet. A judge struck down that regulation as inconsistent with the law. So now we're under a judicial mandate to consider whether anything short of a blanket exemption that will do.
For example, can paid advertisements on the Web, when coordinated with a particular campaign, be considered an in-kind contribution to that campaign? Context is important, and the context here has everything to do with paid advertising, and nothing to do with individuals blogging and sending e-mails.
Third, anyone who says they know what this proposed regulation will address must be clairvoyant, because the commissioners have yet to consider even a draft of the document that will set out the scope of any such rule.
By law, we need to decide on the scope by a public vote, and the rulemaking cannot proceed without the votes of a majority of the six commissioners. At that point, we'll not only publicize what we're contemplating, we'll invite and consider public comment before we make any final decisions. That scope document (called a notice of proposed rulemaking) will be considered later this month. Until that happens, concerns about crackdowns are premature, at best.
I can't speak for my colleagues, but I'm not aware of anyone here who views this rulemaking as a vehicle for shutting down the right of any individual to use their electronic soapbox to voice their political views.
For people who worry about the influence of money on politics, the Internet can only be seen as a force for good, for the simple reason that it's generally a very cheap form of communication. As the Internet becomes an increasingly effective political tool, a candidate may not need to raise large sums of cash to run television ads, if she can get her message out cheaply and efficiently over the Internet.
It would be ironic indeed if, in the name of campaign finance reform, we were to try to squelch inexpensive online grassroots political rabble-rousing. Fortunately, I'm not aware of any intent to do so. Suggestions to the contrary are simply partisan scaremongering tactics by those attempting to foment false hysteria in the Internet community. Don't fall for it.
Biography
Ellen Weintraub is a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Election Commission. This article sets forth her personal views and does not attempt to represent the views of any other member of the FEC.
See more CNET content tagged:
finance,
regulation,
blogger,
blogging,
communication
Comforted to know that free speech for bloggers -- of any political presuation -- will be defended.
Perplexed that she blames "partisan scaremongering" tactics for raising this concern.
Apparently an interview on news.com with an FCC representative entitled "the coming crackdown on bloggers" now constitutes "partisan scaremongering".
Who exactly would benefit from this attempt "to foment false hysteria in the internet community" as she suggests?
I am glad to hear her express her views and her reasoning on why there is no threat, but why then the attempt to blame this confusion on Republican scare tactics? (we've never heard that line before).
Are we unable to promote freedom of speech without having to interject a partisan attack in the process?
Comforted to know that free speech for bloggers -- of any political presuation -- will be defended.
Perplexed that she blames "partisan scaremongering" tactics for raising this concern.
Apparently an interview on news.com with an FCC representative entitled "the coming crackdown on bloggers" now constitutes "partisan scaremongering".
Who exactly would benefit from this attempt "to foment false hysteria in the internet community" as she suggests?
I am glad to hear her express her views and her reasoning on why there is no threat, but why then the attempt to blame this confusion on Republican scare tactics? (we've never heard that line before).
Are we unable to promote freedom of speech without having to interject a partisan attack in the process?
ballots.blogspot.com.
"soapbox
Election law blog sponsored by robbin stewart & associates. 'Andy Horning for Congress'"
If you guys aren't the speech police, he doesn't need a disclaimer? How about Wisconsin Right to Life? Can they link from their homepage?
Joe Blow for a political office. Once Joe Blow pays you to say
"Vote for Joe Blow" then it falls under FEC examination. In your
eample, the blog is sponsored by the law firm, not the endorsed
politician. I guess Free Speech is free, as long as it's FREE.
ballots.blogspot.com.
"soapbox
Election law blog sponsored by robbin stewart & associates. 'Andy Horning for Congress'"
If you guys aren't the speech police, he doesn't need a disclaimer? How about Wisconsin Right to Life? Can they link from their homepage?
Joe Blow for a political office. Once Joe Blow pays you to say
"Vote for Joe Blow" then it falls under FEC examination. In your
eample, the blog is sponsored by the law firm, not the endorsed
politician. I guess Free Speech is free, as long as it's FREE.
"Just everyone cool out........... COOL OUT@#$@!#$@!#$@!!!"
Pretty much sums up my view on this matter.
"Just everyone cool out........... COOL OUT@#$@!#$@!#$@!!!"
Pretty much sums up my view on this matter.
You are right, the issue is coordination. And it does relate to the regulation of advertising. What are you going to consider is "of value" in regards to internet advertising?
A graphic ad? Well, what is that but a link? So what of in-kind? Are you going to start creating two worlds on the internet to fancy your regulations?
And I say this as a partisan Democrat. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you make this into a partisan shoutout, that we Democratic partisan bloggers are going to fall in line behind the misguided Judge, and the Democrats in the FEC that look to regulate the internet.
You should be interested in a poll that I took on MyDD, which showed that 89% of the members said "keep out", and that's among partisan netroots Democratic activists:
http://www.mydd.com/poll/1109969470_iUXKlkzc
You are right, the issue is coordination. And it does relate to the regulation of advertising. What are you going to consider is "of value" in regards to internet advertising?
A graphic ad? Well, what is that but a link? So what of in-kind? Are you going to start creating two worlds on the internet to fancy your regulations?
And I say this as a partisan Democrat. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you make this into a partisan shoutout, that we Democratic partisan bloggers are going to fall in line behind the misguided Judge, and the Democrats in the FEC that look to regulate the internet.
You should be interested in a poll that I took on MyDD, which showed that 89% of the members said "keep out", and that's among partisan netroots Democratic activists:
http://www.mydd.com/poll/1109969470_iUXKlkzc
are making. They're not willing to be considered simply as
individuals using "their electronic soapbox to voice their political
views" or engaging in what she so sneeringly terms "grassroots
political rabble-rousing." Not at all.
Many bloggers consider themselves as much a part of the news
media as newspapers and TV networks. They expect to be
treated by the FEC in exactly the same manner. They're
performing precisely the same function, simply doing so in a
new media. And some have audiences far larger than most
newspapers.
If Weintraub isn't willing to treat bloggers as a part of the news
media in their own right, there will be a major battle. Bloggers
and web sites are not soapboxes and rabble-rousers. Their
political free speech is just as protected from FEC interference
as that of the New York Times. If the NYT can endorse and point
people to where they can give to a candidate, then so can they.
If the NYT can accept political ads, then so can they. If the NYT
can have contact with candidates, then so can they. They're
playing the same game, so they get to play by the same rules.
That's the central issue of this debate, and one Weintraub gives
no indication of understanding.
--Mike Perry, author of Untangling Tolkien
http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklinguniversity/
are making. They're not willing to be considered simply as
individuals using "their electronic soapbox to voice their political
views" or engaging in what she so sneeringly terms "grassroots
political rabble-rousing." Not at all.
Many bloggers consider themselves as much a part of the news
media as newspapers and TV networks. They expect to be
treated by the FEC in exactly the same manner. They're
performing precisely the same function, simply doing so in a
new media. And some have audiences far larger than most
newspapers.
If Weintraub isn't willing to treat bloggers as a part of the news
media in their own right, there will be a major battle. Bloggers
and web sites are not soapboxes and rabble-rousers. Their
political free speech is just as protected from FEC interference
as that of the New York Times. If the NYT can endorse and point
people to where they can give to a candidate, then so can they.
If the NYT can accept political ads, then so can they. If the NYT
can have contact with candidates, then so can they. They're
playing the same game, so they get to play by the same rules.
That's the central issue of this debate, and one Weintraub gives
no indication of understanding.
--Mike Perry, author of Untangling Tolkien
http://www.InklingBooks.com/inklinguniversity/
NWLB
****
http://www.nwlbnet.blogspot.com
NWLB
****
http://www.nwlbnet.blogspot.com
Jeesh.
Jeesh.
The government has made it quite clear that they want a computer online in ever home and one for every student at school. With all this, there just simply will not be any kind of control that is being discussed here....unless it can be had via an operating system forced onto the people.
The whole "blogger" thing is a complete sham in the first place. Do any of you really think your losing anything by talk coming from federal leaders that they will strong arm website owners to restrict blog content? Blogging (as it's currently defined) is but a small blip on the radar. There ARE far too many bigger things to worry about when it comes to what the US federal government does. Besides, you all can still post your blogs here and be seen. I'm quite sure CNET has a pretty large audience.
Anyone, anywhere in the world (almost), can have their own website....and put on it anything they want....even their political views.
Get a grip people.......
The government has made it quite clear that they want a computer online in ever home and one for every student at school. With all this, there just simply will not be any kind of control that is being discussed here....unless it can be had via an operating system forced onto the people.
The whole "blogger" thing is a complete sham in the first place. Do any of you really think your losing anything by talk coming from federal leaders that they will strong arm website owners to restrict blog content? Blogging (as it's currently defined) is but a small blip on the radar. There ARE far too many bigger things to worry about when it comes to what the US federal government does. Besides, you all can still post your blogs here and be seen. I'm quite sure CNET has a pretty large audience.
Anyone, anywhere in the world (almost), can have their own website....and put on it anything they want....even their political views.
Get a grip people.......
I think we can all agree that a flashing ad link at the top of a web page is an advertisement.
But at it's base, that ad is a link.
So, what is the difference between a flashing ad at the top of a page, and a link to that same person's website to collect donations?
See how the waters are turning muddy?
- It seems that the issue is confused...
-
by
March 8, 2005 5:58 PM PST
- Maybe I'm wrong, but from what I've heard, the FEC will potentially be regulating online advertising, not blogging (making comments). The newspaper endorsement = blogger endorsement concept will not be regulated. It is the ads that online publishers accept, be they major media sites, demographic/interest sites, or local sites - or blogs - that accept advertising. This past election cycle saw interest groups restricted from using TV and radio to get their endorsements out - again, paid media - unless they had a seperate fundraising effort. That seemed unconstitutional to me. The only thing I agree on is that, in addition to advertisers (not bloggers) being potentially liable for libel and slander, is that they disclose who is behind their efforts. I've been involved in electoral politics and have seen some nasty last minute things that are bold faced lies. But some of these regulations are scary.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- Not so confused...
-
by
March 10, 2005 2:37 PM PST
- The problem is what constitutes an ad. Yes, they are looking at paid ads on the internet, and try to see how that fits with the current laws.
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (30 Comments)I think we can all agree that a flashing ad link at the top of a web page is an advertisement.
But at it's base, that ad is a link.
So, what is the difference between a flashing ad at the top of a page, and a link to that same person's website to collect donations?
See how the waters are turning muddy?