Comments on: Democrats defeat election-law aid for bloggers
Proposal would have amended U.S. election laws to immunize bloggers from hundreds of pages of federal regulations.
Proposal would have amended U.S. election laws to immunize bloggers from hundreds of pages of federal regulations.
January 4, 2010 8:25 PM PST
January 4, 2010 7:20 PM PST
January 4, 2010 7:10 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
Sounds like a reasonable worry to me.
How this would benefit one side more than the other is beyond me. Democrats have just realized that, like talk radio, there are more conservative blogs (and conservative blog readers) than liberal ones, plus the dems very strong ties to the MSM who feel that only they are the rightful dispensers of news.
As opposed to what, a mass media outlet 'faking' a story for political purposes? (*cough*, Dan Rather)
Or the mass media creating an hour-long 'hillary for president' tv advertisement in the form of a political drama?
And anyways, who cares if someone creates a 'fake blog'? Isnt the point of political blogs to present an opinion?
The real problem here is that the dems know they have a lock on the major media outlets, and they dont want that power and influence to be jeapardized by grass roots bloggers.
Once there you might have to scroll down some to locate the article.
Besides, the people will support almost anything. All you need to do is saturate the media with noise and no one will be able to tell truth from fiction. That is what W. R. Hearst was all about, say it over and over and eventually people will believe it no matter how big the lie. Just ask Max Cleland. Heck, if those paid right wing bloggers had to tell the truth who knows what would happen. I mean how could a Republican ever get elected without people like Karl Rove.
appeared to be "bloggers" were paid thousands of dollars
directly from the campaign fund of a winning Senate candidate
after the election was over. One of the "bloggers" was also hired
to work on the staff of the newly-elected official. In effect, what
happened was that the campaign set up phony blogs to put out
attacks on the opponent. This activity should have been
identified as funded by the campaign, just like any other
campaign advertising, be it in newspapers or on TV or radio.
Blogs do not deserve a special exemption from these laws.
We have a right to free speech online. We also have a right to
know when that speech is being bought by a political candidate.
I can go out using my own resources, set up a blog, and
pontificate to my heart's contend. There are no restrictions on
that and there never will be. I cannot, however, pose as an
independent blogger and be paid by a political campaign or one
of the political parties for my services unless I disclose this fact
plainly. That is what this issue is about.
Television advertising is less and less effective at reaching
voters. The rise of the internet means that candidates are
finding new ways to spread information. That is great, but
campaign disclosure laws need to keep up with the times so that
we can be truly informed.
- The Democrats argument against this?
- by youth+100488 November 3, 2005 10:11 PM PST
- What did the Democrats say was wrong with this bill? Besides, the 2/3 supermajority is sorta odd anyone think? Either way, it sounds like a bum deal used to muddy the waters,
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Supermajority
- by Thrudheim November 4, 2005 11:00 AM PST
- The reason for the two-thirds requirements was that the House
- Like this
-
- Limiting college aid.....
- by Earl Benser November 5, 2005 2:50 AM PST
- .... to tuition, books, and a small living allowance would be a very,
- Like this
-
(15 Comments)I'd be more worried about a few dozen hundred other problems.... try to get either party to cut the budget-oh wait they just said over the next 5 years they will pull funding from $30 billion worth of college aid and such,
leadership wanted to use a special procedure called "Suspension of
the Rules," in which the normal rules of debate and amendment are
not operative. Normally, this procedure is used for non-
controversial stuff since the two-thirds vote is required. Since they
didn't have the two-thirds vote, they will probably have to go back
and use the regular House procedures and get a majority vote.
very good move, and very much overdue. But that's another story....