September 26, 2005 4:00 AM PDT
Perspective: Reforming the Net campaign reformers
See all Perspectives
That 2002 law, which included the most extreme restrictions on political speech in a generation, is called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It's better known by the names of its Senate sponsors, John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis.
Today it's known on the Internet as an unconstitutional restriction on free expression, thanks to federal regulations based on the law that are currently being drafted and are expected to become final in the next few months. Bloggers are alarmed, civil disobedience is being mooted, and petitions are circulating.
Our politicians may lack an appreciation for the values enshrined in the First Amendment, but they're hardly naive. Now that they've realized that a public backlash is brewing from bloggers and online activists from both major parties, members of Congress who once embraced strict Internet restrictions are backpedaling. (Possible regulations could include mandatory disclosures of affiliations with campaigns, restrictions on linking, or rules against republishing campaign material.)
At a hearing last Thursday, Reps. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who voted for the law back in 2002, belatedly acknowledged that some legislative tinkering was in order.
"I'm not persuaded that the federal government should regulate the Internet," Lofgren said. She added that a new bill to immunize the Internet now enjoys broad support.
It's about time
It's good that our politicians have realized their error. So what took them so long?
They had plenty of chances to protect the Internet from the most onerous extrusions of campaign finance rules--way back when the McCain-Feingold bill was being debated.
At one point, Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, offered an amendment--nearly identical to this year's legislative fix--saying that "none of the limitations, prohibitions or reporting requirements of this act shall apply to any activity carried out through the use of the Internet." But the House rejected DeLay's amendment by a 160-268 vote.
With the help of Democratic leaders in power at the time, McCain and Feingold bottled up a similar bill in a Senate committee. That save-the-Internet legislation never had a chance.
The current debate makes some of the original hands-off-the-Internet politicians--led by notables such as the estimable Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas--look surprisingly prescient. Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, voted for DeLay's laissez-faire amendment years ago and has, to his credit, stuck to his guns since.
"The debate here is not between Democrats and Republicans but between those who favor regulating and those who don't," Ney said at last week's hearing. "I'm supportive along the lines of not regulating."
The debate over the McCain-Feingold law doesn't entirely divide along party lines; a Republican president signed it, and the American Civil Liberties Union joined the unsuccessful constitutional challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court.
But it is fair to blame Democrats for letting today's situation happen. Only five House Democrats voted to fix the McCain-Feingold measure when it was being debated years ago. And then, after U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled last year that the McCain-Feingold law covered the Internet, the three Democratic members of the Federal Election Commission were content with that outcome. The three Republican commissioners wanted to appeal, but lacked a majority.
True, the FEC's proposed regulations probably won't be as restrictive as an earlier, internal draft would have been. But former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith--who blew the whistle in a March interview--warns of future regulatory expansionism. "I think this is a very serious development for bloggers, and I use that term loosely to cover people who operate Web forums and Web sites," Smith told me on Friday.
That offers a second chance for the politicians--again, mostly Democrats--who voted for Internet restrictions years ago. Now we'll see whether they have the political courage to admit their mistake and fix McCain-Feingold.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.
See more CNET content tagged:
Rep., politician, restriction, First Amendment, law
In general, and with the usual caveat that covers generalities, our politicians are simply stupid. It's the herd syndrome that can take even the brightest individual and turn him or her into a mooing moron when placed in a group.
If you think back to the time, many of them expected the Supreme Court to knock down some or all of this bill within seconds after it was signed. That time around, however, the Court, the final arbiter of Constitutionality, decided to disavow any knowledge of the First Amendment and let the law stand. Its inability to apply Constitutional guidelines to cases such as this has, since then, become notorious.
Second, as with everything on the Internet, where the First Amendment is not applicable, chaos reigns. Isn't it ironic that the only country that this restriction of free speech applies to is also the only country that has, as one of its fundamental rights, the freedom of speech. I guess I'll move to Canada, where I can't call Bill Gates a monopolist, but at least I can criticism the U.S. government to my heart's content.
Because until someone actually sues or is charged and has to appear in court, the Supreme Court can't really do anything.
This, however, seems just another one of those well-meaning pieces of legislation that somehow got out of hand, like the Patriot Act and the DCMA - which at first appeared necessary, but now looking back we can see huge constitutional problems with how they work and the powers they give to various law enforcement agencies.
In general, and with the usual caveat that covers generalities, our politicians are simply stupid. It's the herd syndrome that can take even the brightest individual and turn him or her into a mooing moron when placed in a group.
If you think back to the time, many of them expected the Supreme Court to knock down some or all of this bill within seconds after it was signed. That time around, however, the Court, the final arbiter of Constitutionality, decided to disavow any knowledge of the First Amendment and let the law stand. Its inability to apply Constitutional guidelines to cases such as this has, since then, become notorious.
Second, as with everything on the Internet, where the First Amendment is not applicable, chaos reigns. Isn't it ironic that the only country that this restriction of free speech applies to is also the only country that has, as one of its fundamental rights, the freedom of speech. I guess I'll move to Canada, where I can't call Bill Gates a monopolist, but at least I can criticism the U.S. government to my heart's content.
Because until someone actually sues or is charged and has to appear in court, the Supreme Court can't really do anything.
This, however, seems just another one of those well-meaning pieces of legislation that somehow got out of hand, like the Patriot Act and the DCMA - which at first appeared necessary, but now looking back we can see huge constitutional problems with how they work and the powers they give to various law enforcement agencies.
In general, and with the usual caveat that covers generalities, our politicians are simply stupid. It's the herd syndrome that can take even the brightest individual and turn him or her into a mooing moron when placed in a group.
If you think back to the time, many of them expected the Supreme Court to knock down some or all of this bill within seconds after it was signed. That time around, however, the Court, the final arbiter of Constitutionality, decided to disavow any knowledge of the First Amendment and let the law stand. Its inability to apply Constitutional guidelines to cases such as this has, since then, become notorious.
Second, as with everything on the Internet, where the First Amendment is not applicable, chaos reigns. Isn't it ironic that the only country that this restriction of free speech applies to is also the only country that has, as one of its fundamental rights, the freedom of speech. I guess I'll move to Canada, where I can't call Bill Gates a monopolist, but at least I can criticism the U.S. government to my heart's content.
Because until someone actually sues or is charged and has to appear in court, the Supreme Court can't really do anything.
This, however, seems just another one of those well-meaning pieces of legislation that somehow got out of hand, like the Patriot Act and the DCMA - which at first appeared necessary, but now looking back we can see huge constitutional problems with how they work and the powers they give to various law enforcement agencies.
mark d.
It was a poorly constructed bill that was turned over to activists in the Congress so it would pass and look like those baffoons (or do I mean boffins?) were actually doing something -with the expectations that the Supreme Court would strike down several of its provisions. Oops.
In the age of information that we're in, it is quite difficult to covertly buy any portion of the government. And, even if you don't, the Internet will accuse you of it anyway if it seems like you should have.
mark d.
It was a poorly constructed bill that was turned over to activists in the Congress so it would pass and look like those baffoons (or do I mean boffins?) were actually doing something -with the expectations that the Supreme Court would strike down several of its provisions. Oops.
In the age of information that we're in, it is quite difficult to covertly buy any portion of the government. And, even if you don't, the Internet will accuse you of it anyway if it seems like you should have.
- The Best Government Money Can Buy . . .
- by markdoiron September 26, 2005 3:21 PM PDT
- ... that's the alternative to McCain-Feingold. yeah, the law might need tweeking, but surely this law was needed to allow the voices of the vast majority of Americans to be heard over the rich, greedy and oppressive.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- You're totally off-base
- by hardedge September 26, 2005 9:41 PM PDT
- The M-F Campaign Finance Reform Bill actually invreased the amount of moeny floating around. Hopefully you didn't miss the antics of the 527's who proved that the M-F authors only granted free speech to those persons or organizations with the most money?
- Like this
-
(18 Comments)mark d.
It was a poorly constructed bill that was turned over to activists in the Congress so it would pass and look like those baffoons (or do I mean boffins?) were actually doing something -with the expectations that the Supreme Court would strike down several of its provisions. Oops.
In the age of information that we're in, it is quite difficult to covertly buy any portion of the government. And, even if you don't, the Internet will accuse you of it anyway if it seems like you should have.